Why (tell them anything)? None of the politicians either care or have a clue either. Hillary did say something about making the oil companies pay back some of the money they've gouged the consumers out of, or something to that effect - not sure exactly what she said.
She said, and I quote: "I want to TAKE those profits...". Who the f*** is she, or any other politician, to decide to TAKE someone's profits? It might sound cool to do that to an oil company, since they are the alleged bad guys right now, but why stop there? Why not decide to take what YOU have?
Oh, by the way, you CAN'T take a company's profits. If you do, they company passes the cost onto the people who buy their product. It simply goes into the cost of the product. So Hillary would put some kind of tax or fee on them, and WE would pay higher prices. Or, they would run the company out of business. Either way, WE lose.
quote
Did you iknow that in spite of profits exceeding 38 BILLION last year alone, Exxon has STILL not paid the poor folks at Prince William Sound the 17 bil that they won in a judgement in court for the Valdez incident? Now that is just CRIMINAL. The exxon execs. should be in jail. Paul
Nope. If they owe the money, they should pay. If they have won a judgment and don't pay, it IS criminal. But that's a different matter than oil company profits.
Personally, I'm more worried about deforestation than CO2 emissions. You see, Carbon is recyclable. Plants absorb it out of the atmosphere. As long as there is enough plant matter to absorb the excess CO2, everything is fine. But the point is that atmospheric CO2 is a symptom, not the cause.
Unfortunately, that carbon calculator only tells half the story. It doesn't take into account all the plant matter on your property, to absorb your CO2 emissions. If it did, my "carbon footprint" would be VERY low. My back yard is like a miniature forest. But... whatever... :shrug:
Yeah, deforestation is a major part of the problem. We're still loosing massive amonuts of forest every year. It takes a LOT of trees to offset the Co2 we produce. I think the Co2 calcs are relevent, because it measures the amount of enery we use. It's not just about the Co2 we produce, it's the other pollutants & the dependence on forien oil (especially) that really hurts us. I don't know why I can't get the other posters to understand this.... Paul
Originally posted by fierobear: She said, and I quote: "I want to TAKE those profits...". Who the f*** is she, or any other politician, to decide to TAKE someone's profits? It might sound cool to do that to an oil company, since they are the alleged bad guys right now, but why stop there? Why not decide to take what YOU have?
Oh, by the way, you CAN'T take a company's profits. If you do, they company passes the cost onto the people who buy their product. It simply goes into the cost of the product. So Hillary would put some kind of tax or fee on them, and WE would pay higher prices. Or, they would run the company out of business. Either way, WE lose.
What she sould have said is that she would quit giving them the tax reliefs that Bush & his cohorts have handed out, untill they quit gouging the comsumers.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Nope. If they owe the money, they should pay. If they have won a judgment and don't pay, it IS criminal. But that's a different matter than oil company profits.
Right: They ARE crminal. They should be made to pay, & do jail time. Paul
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 04-26-2008).]
What she sould have said is that she would quit giving them the tax reliefs that Bush & his cohorts have handed out, untill they quit gouging the comsumers.
What exact tax relief did Bush and his cohorts give them? Exactly what is it. No partisan talking points but real proof that outlines exactly what Bush did.
And do you have any evidence of gouching? You say they are but there isn't a shread of evidence. If you have it then you have a lot of power. This paper work should be given to congress since they have been looking for this majical evidence you have in their reports. You have info no one else does. Can I see it? Please?
quote
Originally posted by Tha Driver:
Right: They ARE crminal. They should be made to pay, & do jail time. Paul
It is a civil crime and not subject to jail time. Unless you want to stretch it into a contempt of court charge. But in order for that you have to show that the monies had to be paid in a certain time. I also believe the case is still being appealed.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 04-26-2008).]
Originally posted by Phranc: What exact tax relief did Bush and his cohorts give them? Exactly what is it. No partisan talking points but real proof that outlines exactly what Bush did.
And do you have any evidence of gouching? You say they are but there isn't a shread of evidence. If you have it then you have a lot of power. This paper work should be given to congress since they have been looking for this majical evidence you have in their reports. You have info no one else does. Can I see it? Please?
Just watch the news every night. Not just one channel but several different ones. You'll be much better informed & know when Bush & the other greedy bastards pass the legislation that screwes us all. You want a number? I don't have that. But if you REALLY want to find out, it's public record: I'm sure you can look it up online.
Gouging? How about when the price of crude goes up & THE NEXT DAY we pay more at the pumps, even though it's weeks befiore that crude arrives at the pumps. Then when crude goes down, the price STAYS UP at the pumps for weeks, if it comes down AT ALL. One small example.
quote
Originally posted by Phranc: It is a civil crime and not subject to jail time. Unless you want to stretch it into a contempt of court charge. But in order for that you have to show that the monies had to be paid in a certain time. I also believe the case is still being appealed.
Of COURSE it's being appealed. It WILL BE untill the end of time, because it's cheaper for exxon to do that then pay the judgment. Meanwhile, the poor folks at Prince William Sound are loosing their homes, & starving because they can no longer make a living fishing. If you don't believe that you can look it up online too. Paul
IP: Logged
03:26 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Originally posted by Tha Driver: I think the Co2 calcs are relevent, because it measures the amount of enery we use. It's not just about the Co2 we produce, it's the other pollutants & the dependence on forien oil (especially) that really hurts us.
Not to be rude, but I don't think it's relevant, because it only tells half the truth (at best). But I won't say any more, because I don't want to clutter up your thread. Have a nice weekend.
Originally posted by Tha Driver: Just watch the news every night. Not just one channel but several different ones. You'll be much better informed & know when Bush & the other greedy bastards pass the legislation that screwes us all. You want a number? I don't have that. But if you REALLY want to find out, it's public record: I'm sure you can look it up online.
So you can't actually tell me what this legislation is. You don't know. You are just blowing partisan smoke. Thank you for clearing that up.
quote
Of COURSE it's being appealed. It WILL BE untill the end of time, because it's cheaper for exxon to do that then pay the judgment. Meanwhile, the poor folks at Prince William Sound are loosing their homes, & starving because they can no longer make a living fishing. If you don't believe that you can look it up online too. Paul
Are they starving? You are 100% sure about that? I don't want to look it up. I want you to back up your claims. Some links would be nice. If you can't or are unwilling to do that just tell me now and I won't waste any more time on you since you will obviously be nothing bore ten a hack billowing BS.
IP: Logged
03:58 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Posted by Tha Driver: Just watch the news every night. Not just one channel but several different ones. You'll be much better informed & know when Bush & the other greedy bastards pass the legislation that screwes us all. You want a number? I don't have that. But if you REALLY want to find out, it's public record: I'm sure you can look it up online.
I think you mean the next president, especially if it is Obama or Hillary. Thats when all the crazy taxes and penalties and such for using gasoline will proabbly start to be imposed. Thats when we will all be "screwed".
IP: Logged
05:43 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by 2.5: I think you mean the next president, especially if it is Obama or Hillary. Thats when all the crazy taxes and penalties and such for using gasoline will proabbly start to be imposed. Thats when we will all be "screwed".
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tha Driver: Just watch the news every night. Not just one channel but several different ones. You'll be much better informed & know when Bush & the other greedy bastards pass the legislation that screwes us all. You want a number? I don't have that. But if you REALLY want to find out, it's public record: I'm sure you can look it up online.
So you can't actually tell me what this legislation is. You don't know. You are just blowing partisan smoke. Thank you for clearing that up.
quote
Of COURSE it's being appealed. It WILL BE untill the end of time, because it's cheaper for exxon to do that then pay the judgment. Meanwhile, the poor folks at Prince William Sound are loosing their homes, & starving because they can no longer make a living fishing. If you don't believe that you can look it up online too. Paul
Are they starving? You are 100% sure about that? I don't want to look it up. I want you to back up your claims. Some links would be nice. If you can't or are unwilling to do that just tell me now and I won't waste any more time on you since you will obviously be nothing bore ten a hack billowing BS. [/QUOTE] No I can't tell you whtat the number is because I don't write everything down & I don't have a photographic memory. Do you? Yes I'm 100% sure: there was a special on it a few months back. A LOT of them are homeless & starving. They have no way to support themselves. I'm not going to spend the time looking it up, 'cause it took nearly a minite for this damn page to come up to reply to you on this LOUSY alltel/windstream dialup, & I don't have the hours it would take waiting for pages to come up & re-connecting to the internet. I've asked you ALL to quit posting/debating on the subject of pollution/etc., but you continue. If you don't believe what I have to say then use your DSL to look it up yourself. Paul
No I can't tell you whtat the number is because I don't write everything down & I don't have a photographic memory. Do you? Yes I'm 100% sure: there was a special on it a few months back. A LOT of them are homeless & starving. They have no way to support themselves. I'm not going to spend the time looking it up, 'cause it took nearly a minite for this damn page to come up to reply to you on this LOUSY alltel/windstream dialup, & I don't have the hours it would take waiting for pages to come up & re-connecting to the internet. I've asked you ALL to quit posting/debating on the subject of pollution/etc., but you continue. If you don't believe what I have to say then use your DSL to look it up yourself. Paul
So despite your butchering of the quote function you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. And instead of backing it up you lay excuses at my feet. If you can't be bothered to provide anything to back your statements up don't be shocked to learn I or others can't be bothered to believe you. I'm still waiting for the exact legislation Bush and his cronies passed. I know I won't get it or any thing else to back up your statements. That's to bad. I was hoping to have a discussion about it. I'll just keep in mind not to question you anymore because you are unwilling to provide any evidence.
So despite your butchering of the quote function you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. And instead of backing it up you lay excuses at my feet. If you can't be bothered to provide anything to back your statements up don't be shocked to learn I or others can't be bothered to believe you. I'm still waiting for the exact legislation Bush and his cronies passed. I know I won't get it or any thing else to back up your statements. That's to bad. I was hoping to have a discussion about it. I'll just keep in mind not to question you anymore because you are unwilling to provide any evidence.
I hit the "quote" button, & after waiting nearly a minite for the page to come up I posted my text below everything else. See what I'm up against with this connection? I don't have the time for a discussion. I post the truth. Thank you for not posting any more questions/requests for links. Paul
BTW this page has still not fully loaded after I have one-finger typed out all of the above text, this included....
I hit the "quote" button, & after waiting nearly a minite for the page to come up I posted my text below everything else. See what I'm up against with this connection? I don't have the time for a discussion. I post the truth. Thank you for not posting any more questions/requests for links. Paul
BTW this page has still not fully loaded after I have one-finger typed out all of the above text, this included....
Truth? Well if that's what you call unsubstantiated partisan hacker then so be it. Many of your "truths" have already been debunked.
IP: Logged
09:29 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Maybe in your opinion. I think they are both bad. I wasn't just referring to "taxes" either.
It isn't my opinion. Democrats say that oil companies are bad for raising prices because it hurts consumers and poor people. But they think it's a good idea to raise gas taxes to get more money and to encourage conservation to fight global warming.
IP: Logged
04:17 AM
MordacP Member
Posts: 1300 From: Clovis, California, US Registered: Sep 2007
It isn't my opinion. Democrats say that oil companies are bad for raising prices because it hurts consumers and poor people. But they think it's a good idea to raise gas taxes to get more money and to encourage conservation to fight global warming.
Heh, an inconvenient truth no doubt. It amazes me to no end that this blatant contradiction is ignored or worse yet, supported by the left leaning political supporters. In fact "they" do it all over the place! One of the first things our governor did when she got into office was slap a 10 cent a gallon tax on us.
Everyone can debate all they want about what's causing pollution, & how to correct it. Fact is we're killing the earth, & the Co2 is one of the main problems.
Greenhouse warming?What greenhouse warming? (pdf file) "The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicted by computer models is absent from real-world, observed trends in atmospheric temperature change"
I know it must take your connection to long to see that for your self.
IP: Logged
06:20 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
It isn't my opinion. Democrats say that oil companies are bad for raising prices because it hurts consumers and poor people. But they think it's a good idea to raise gas taxes to get more money and to encourage conservation to fight global warming.
I know it must take your connection to long to see that for your self.
# 1 you're just wrong on. # 2 wasn't even my post. On the TV last night: a special telling FACTS about global warming, & how Co2 affects it. They had info going back 60,000 years, & said there was more Co2 than ever before. I could go through the entire 2 hr. broadcast, & pick out several FACTS that prove me (& everyone else that can see how Co2 affects global warming & pollution) right. You really should turn on your TV & watch the news (& other shows other than the Simpsons) sometime. Paul
# 1 you're just wrong on. # 2 wasn't even my post. On the TV last night: a special telling FACTS about global warming, & how Co2 affects it. They had info going back 60,000 years, & said there was more Co2 than ever before. I could go through the entire 2 hr. broadcast, & pick out several FACTS that prove me (& everyone else that can see how Co2 affects global warming & pollution) right. You really should turn on your TV & watch the news (& other shows other than the Simpsons) sometime. Paul
Wasn't your post? How am I wrong exactly I quoted you with the quote button. I've seen some dodging before but claiming you weren't the one that was quoted when I used the quote button is a new one. And the following post blew your incorrect claim out of the water.
C02 doesn't affect pollution.
The ice core samples are incorrect. Thats where these "records" come from.
There is more C02 now but not as much more as the incorrect ice cores say.
C02 is a lagging indicator of temp. That means the temp goes up before the C02.
So please pick out these facts you have and share them. Please prove your self right. So far you haven't. All youve done is make claims that are factually incorrect.
# 1 you're just wrong on. # 2 wasn't even my post. On the TV last night: a special telling FACTS about global warming, & how Co2 affects it. They had info going back 60,000 years, & said there was more Co2 than ever before. I could go through the entire 2 hr. broadcast, & pick out several FACTS that prove me (& everyone else that can see how Co2 affects global warming & pollution) right. You really should turn on your TV & watch the news (& other shows other than the Simpsons) sometime. Paul
I think that's your problem, you really expect to get unbiased information from, of all places, TV?! Are you really serious? Just turn on your TV and let the truth flow into your body? Its just that easy? Wow, to think, I've been waisting all this time, searching the internet for accurate sources on the subject. I could have just flipped the switch on the TV and had all the truth just given to me? I've been jipped!
Have you ever verified the accuracy or reliablity of any of these great sources on the TV? You do realize that news programs on TV are just trying to scare people into watching their channel for ratings?
Wasn't your post? How am I wrong exactly I quoted you with the quote button. I've seen some dodging before but claiming you weren't the one that was quoted when I used the quote button is a new one. And the following post blew your incorrect claim out of the water.
C02 doesn't affect pollution.
The ice core samples are incorrect. Thats where these "records" come from.
There is more C02 now but not as much more as the incorrect ice cores say.
C02 is a lagging indicator of temp. That means the temp goes up before the C02.
So please pick out these facts you have and share them. Please prove your self right. So far you haven't. All youve done is make claims that are factually incorrect.
Check the post (or edit it to make you look right) & you'll see the second quote is not from me. I guess the ice lied too. It decided to capture *different* gasses than were in the atmosphere. You're twisting things around. The SAME things that produce Co2 (burning fossil fuels) produce pollution. Are you going to argue that piont? That's the point I've been making all along. I guess the scientists don't know a thing - but you can (& obviously do) believe the politicians. You didn't see Mythbusters the other day either, did you? They had plexiglass boxes with air (oxygen), Co2, & methane, & another "control", & an ice statue in each. The Co2 & methane stayed at 1 degree hotter than the others & the statues melted quicker. But of course that was due to them breathing heavier around them or something. ("Myth" that Co2 increases temperature CONFIRMED) But you know more than the scientists, so I believe you. Did you not see where I've asked SEVERAL TIMES NOW not to turn this thread into a debate on polution/etc.???? I guess you didn't believe that either. I'M DONE - shut the *@#$% up if you don't wish to lean anything. Paul
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 04-28-2008).]
I think that's your problem, you really expect to get unbiased information from, of all places, TV?! Are you really serious? Just turn on your TV and let the truth flow into your body? Its just that easy? Wow, to think, I've been waisting all this time, searching the internet for accurate sources on the subject. I could have just flipped the switch on the TV and had all the truth just given to me? I've been jipped!
Have you ever verified the accuracy or reliablity of any of these great sources on the TV? You do realize that news programs on TV are just trying to scare people into watching their channel for ratings?
Well I don't believe everything I see or hear. But when the facts are presented from several *reliable* sources, over several DECADES, I'm smart enough to antalyze them & determine the truth. You probably aren't even old enough to have seem this debate play out over the decades. It's not *just* the news, by any means. Again: PLEASE STOP TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE OVER POLLUTION. If you're ashamed of your carbon footprint, you don't have to post it! (or make excuses as to why it dosen't matter!) Paul
lol - no, I am not ashamed on my carbon footprint. in fact, I will be burning left over scraps from a construction project tonight in my backyard. as I convert scrap lumber, and some yard waste into a pile of carbon. and dump it behind the garage. yes - I will make a good 30-50 pounds of carbon tonight. and, of course - dont forget the CO2 I will be making also - yes - Carbon & Carbon Dioxide are 2 different things. and, I'll be making 'em both. but, first, I will be going for a ride on my bicycle. and, while I work myself - I will be expeding much CO2 - because - well - I like breathing.
maybe, while I am burning stuff, I'll get a long stick, and put a weenie on it, and give it a nice carbon coat as well - and then consume it, and say "yum yum - burnt weenie sandwhich!" as I crunch on the carbon between my tooths.
and - there is a magic day in the summer, when me & all my bud's - we save our "used motor oil" and other such liquids - like paint thinners & solvents - for a wonderful weekend fire. Some of these I'd swear you can see from the space shuttle.
Check the post (or edit it to make you look right) & you'll see the second quote is not from me. I guess the ice lied too. It decided to capture *different* gasses than were in the atmosphere. You're twisting things around. The SAME things that produce Co2 (burning fossil fuels) produce pollution. Are you going to argue that piont? That's the point I've been making all along. I guess the scientists don't know a thing - but you can (& obviously do) believe the politicians. You didn't see Mythbusters the other day either, did you? They had plexiglass boxes with air (oxygen), Co2, & methane, & another "control", & an ice statue in each. The Co2 & methane stayed at 1 degree hotter than the others & the statues melted quicker. But of course that was due to them breathing heavier around them or something. ("Myth" that Co2 increases temperature CONFIRMED) But you know more than the scientists, so I believe you. Did you not see where I've asked SEVERAL TIMES NOW not to turn this thread into a debate on polution/etc.???? I guess you didn't believe that either. I'M DONE - shut the *@#$% up if you don't wish to lean anything. Paul
I didn't say the second post was yours . Its there to show how your quote and "truth" was wrong.
The ice is wrong. It won't tell you that on tv so its not true I guess. I'd give a link but your connection is to slow.
I'm not twisting anything. You simply don't understand. Maybe I should make a documentary for you and put it on PBS.
You do know that C02 comes from other things then what causes pollution right?
I find it funny you say I don't believe the scientist but the politicians when I'm actually using data from scientists and you are using talking points from politicians
Mythbusters? Did a controlled experiment? Controlled. What was the ppm they used of C02? Yes C02 is a "green house gas" but so is water vapor and there is more water vapor in the air and it does a much better job then C02.
Why do you insist this not be a debate on pollution when you say your whole point is that C02 = pollution?
Thanks for telling me to STFU since its you who refuses to learn. There are plenty of links some of us would be happy to give you so you can learn from real scientists and keep swallowing the spoon fed bunk science you get on tv. Thats to bad I guess. Your willingness to lead around like a rat by the pied piper of political hype is sad. You refuse to to look at the data and cling onto to what the tv tells you. Its people like you that perpetuate the BS and make it harder for the truth to get out there in mass quantity. But you stick you fingers in your ear and la la la la your way into ignorant bliss. I'll just go read more real data and learn what is real instead of what is hype.
Originally posted by Tha Driver: Again: PLEASE STOP TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE OVER POLLUTION. If you're ashamed of your carbon footprint, you don't have to post it! (or make excuses as to why it dosen't matter!) Paul
It is a debate, the carbon footptint thingy is all about pushing it. You can't post the first post without starting a debate. As far as scientist being right, they have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future too. Having said that there are scientists who believe the opposite of what you are posting here, but the media will not cover that.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
edit to add a thanks to fierobear for providing the links originally in another thread.
No problem, phrac. In fact, I'm thinking of starting a fresh thread on the subject. I have a LOT of stuff to post, based on what I'm learning. Stay tuned.
Why do you insist this not be a debate on pollution when you say your whole point is that C02 = pollution?
Because I don't have time for your BS & to look up all the links you want me to. But no matter how many times I say it, YOU STILL INSIST ON POSTING MORE CRAP IN MY THREAD, DON"T YOU? Start you're own damn thread if you want to debate global warming. What I said was that burning fossil fuels causes pollution, & that measuring Co2 is a way to measure the amount of pollution you cause. GET IT STRAIGHT.
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 04-28-2008).]
It is a debate, the carbon footptint thingy is all about pushing it. You can't post the first post without starting a debate. As far as scientist being right, they have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future too. Having said that there are scientists who believe the opposite of what you are posting here, but the media will not cover that.
Well I CAN request that it not be debated here, & for folks to start their OWN thread if they want to debate it, but I can see that there are a few who just don't give a crap & will do whatever they like to scew up someone else's thread any way they can, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE OP TELLS THEM TO SHUT UP. What's the debate anyway? YOU HAVE A CARBON FOOTPRINT. I just posted a link so that you can measure it.
IP: Logged
03:38 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
CO2 is NOT pollution. SO2 is. as are many other nasties. there is nothing wrong with CO2. and - CO2 & Carbon are also not the same thing. a Diamond is carbon. I'd love a 5 pound diamond.
and, trying to seperate "carbon footprint" from global warming is like trying to seperate the cross from the church.
there is nothing wrong or silly about trying to reduce pollution. reducing pollution is a good thing.
but, basicly asking people to die - which eliminating CO2 output is - just will not work. we need to exhale. sorry. and - while here - methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 - how's about a "no farting" campaign? and, I find solid excrement to be a bit more polluting than bad breath. a no more turds campaign?
Originally posted by Tha Driver: Because I don't have time for your BS & to look up all the links you want me to.
You don't have time for facts? Thats to bad.
quote
But no matter how many times I say it, YOU STILL INSIST ON POSTING MORE CRAP IN MY THREAD, DON"T YOU? Start you're own damn thread if you want to debate global warming.
But isn't that what you thread is about? If not whats the point of the carbon foot print? Its to see how much effect you have on global warming.
quote
What I said was that burning fossil fuels causes pollution, & that measuring Co2 is a way to measure the amount of pollution you cause. GET IT STRAIGHT.
Measuring C02 is not a way to measure amount of pollution you cause. You make far more C02 then just what coincides with pollution. If that is the metric you want to use you will come up with flawed data and a flawed understanding. You would know that if you followed some of those links.
You don't have anywhere near a rudimentary level understanding of carbon foot prints and it real impact. The calculator isn't even close to accurate. Its all part of the guilting of rubes like you who fall for it.
I see why you want me to stop posting and I understand. I show you to be lacking credibility and totally destroy like bunk you are passing around. I offer facts that refute the premise of this thread and you want it not brought up. You don't want to here the facts. Anything that disputes the spoon fed crap you have been swallowing upsets your little world. But hey I'm not on TV so I must be wrong.
OK you're ALL right. I completely agree with you: There is the SAME amount of Co2 in the atmosphere as there has always been. The Ice cores lie. When you burn fossil fuels, there are no pollutants just Co2 & that dosen't hurt anything cause it's completely natural. The people of Prince William Sound are making huge profits off of the oil left behind by the Valdez, & living in mansions because of it. The Ice caps are the same size as they've always been. The forests are still as large as they ever were. We are not dependent on foriegn oil. Bush has never given the rich any tax reliefs. The oil companies deserve every dime they make, & in fact we should be so grateful to them we should donate more money to them. Greenhouse gasses actually COOL DOWN the earth. The temperature of the earth has remained constant since the beginning of time. My internet connection is better than anyone elses in the entire world. I want EVERYONE on PFF to post more BS about what they believe causes global warming so that my thread is COMLETELY useless for the purpose I intended it for. Paul
[This message has been edited by Tha Driver (edited 04-28-2008).]
OK you're ALL right. I completely agree with you: There is the SAME amount of Co2 in the atmosphere as there has always been. No one said that The Ice cores lie. prooved by the data in the links you refuse to click When you burn fossil fuels, there are no pollutants just Co2 & that dosen't hurt anything cause it's completely natural. no one said that either there are pollutants and C02. The people of Prince William Sound are making huge profits off of the oil left behind by the Valdez, & living in mansions because of it. No one said that either. The Ice caps are the same size as they've always been. actually they fluctuate but the median levels have been stable for for the last 100 years. I'd show you a chart but you wont click on it. The forests are still as large as they ever were. They are actually bigger and more wide spread into areas they weren't before man started planting them there. We are not dependent on foriegn oil. No one said that either Bush has never given the rich any tax reliefs. He did. And I thank him for that along with the millions of otheres who got one. The oil companies deserve every dime they make, & in fact we should be so grateful to them we should donate more money to them. Nice strawman. And the companies do deserve every penny they make as do the share holders Greenhouse gasses actually COOL DOWN the earth. Only water vapor in the form of clouds The temperature of the earth has remained constant since the beginning of time. no one said that either My internet connection is better than anyone elses in the entire world. then why do you use it as an excuse not to educate your self? I want EVERYONE on PFF to post more BS about what they believe causes global warming so that my thread is COMLETELY useless for the purpose I intended it for. Paul
Funny you resorted to strawman big enough for hay bales.
IP: Logged
04:19 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27106 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Because I don't have time for your BS & to look up all the links you want me to. But no matter how many times I say it, YOU STILL INSIST ON POSTING MORE CRAP IN MY THREAD, DON"T YOU? Start you're own damn thread if you want to debate global warming. What I said was that burning fossil fuels causes pollution, & that measuring Co2 is a way to measure the amount of pollution you cause. GET IT STRAIGHT.
My apologies if I took your thread off in the wrong direction. I'll start a new thread.
IP: Logged
07:20 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by Tha Driver:Gouging? How about when the price of crude goes up & THE NEXT DAY we pay more at the pumps, even though it's weeks befiore that crude arrives at the pumps. Then when crude goes down, the price STAYS UP at the pumps for weeks, if it comes down AT ALL. One small example.
Well, before the thread gets locked, I thought I'd reply to this, because I actually have an answer you might believe.
The gas station owner buys his gas and then sells it at the pump. If oil prices go up, it's going to cost him more to refill his tanks next time. If he doesn't raise his prices immediately, he won't make enough off the gas in the ground to pay for the next fillup. That's the key - the gas station owner isn't trying to make money on the gas they have - they have to be able to make money on the next batch of gas they have to buy as well.
Why do prices go down slowly? Because there is a time lag in tank fillups. If he's sold half his tanks at $3, then prices go up so his next tank will have to cost $3.50, even raising prices immediately won't pay for the next tanker - so as prices fall back down, he slowly lowers his price to recoup that difference.
If there is gouging, it's at the crude supplier level. 6 years ago crude was about $20 / barrel. In 2007 it was about $60. Oil has gone up 600% in the last 6 years, and doubled in price in the last year. That's where the gouging is happening. The gas station may be where we feel the pinch, but the station owner isn't getting rich off of gas.
Well, before the thread gets locked, I thought I'd reply to this, because I actually have an answer you might believe.
The gas station owner buys his gas and then sells it at the pump. If oil prices go up, it's going to cost him more to refill his tanks next time. If he doesn't raise his prices immediately, he won't make enough off the gas in the ground to pay for the next fillup. That's the key - the gas station owner isn't trying to make money on the gas they have - they have to be able to make money on the next batch of gas they have to buy as well.
Why do prices go down slowly? Because there is a time lag in tank fillups. If he's sold half his tanks at $3, then prices go up so his next tank will have to cost $3.50, even raising prices immediately won't pay for the next tanker - so as prices fall back down, he slowly lowers his price to recoup that difference.
If there is gouging, it's at the crude supplier level. 6 years ago crude was about $20 / barrel. In 2007 it was about $60. Oil has gone up 600% in the last 6 years, and doubled in price in the last year. That's where the gouging is happening. The gas station may be where we feel the pinch, but the station owner isn't getting rich off of gas.
Do you know who owns the gas stations??? In the case of Citgo for example, it's owned by Venuzuala. THEY control the price at the pumps, AND the price of the crude that others buy from them. In fact, most stations are owned by the big companies, & very few of them are owned by an indivudual. So my example is correct. You are also correct in that the gouging occurs directly from the companies/countries pumping the crude, as they ARTIFICALLY raise the prices simply by limiting production (and in the case of domestic companies, limiting refinement too). In fact, our fine administratrion is dealing with OPEC now, threatening to hold back their cash "incentives" if they don't increase production! GEE - WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS AT LEAST A YEAR AGO?!?!?? In fact, WHY ARE SENDING THEM MONEY ANYWAY??!!??!! Paul
