WWTBAM Bored

they stop this juvenile silliness

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-den ... urnament_3

Suggestion: Brackets of the USA's enemies

What did you think of James Inhofe bringing a snowball to the Senate floor as though he thought snow in Washington, DC in February disproved climate change?

elwoodblues wrote:What did you think of James Inhofe bringing a snowball to the Senate floor as though he thought snow in Washington, DC in February disproved climate change?

Because he isn't prez? And because the prez has, not JV, but mddle school PR people?

Just to reassure TMITSSS, barackobama.com isn't a White House website. It belongs to an advocacy group (that I belong to) called Organizing for Action. One of its causes is climate change, and it does some silly things like give unicorn awards to climate change deniers. OFA inherited some assets, such as the barackobama.com website, from Obama's presidential campaigns.

Just curious, does the group have any problem wih Soros' s funding, what with him having fossil fuel holdings and messing in international currencies, etc?

Beebs52 wrote:Just curious, does the group have any problem wih Soros' s funding, what with him having fossil fuel holdings and messing in international currencies, etc?

I didn't know the answer, so I researched it. George Soros made a lot of money in the coal industry and currency speculation, and now he supports progressive causes like clean air. I guess that's his way to make amends.

Oh, his Quantum Fund and others are still involved in natural gas, fracking, et al. It's all easily searchable.

elwoodblues wrote:What did you think of James Inhofe bringing a snowball to the Senate floor as though he thought snow in Washington, DC in February disproved climate change?

I science class they told me an inconsistent fact was enough to disprove an hypothesis

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0UJ_Sc0Udk

Ted Cruz and Seth Meyers

Beebs52 wrote:Oh, his Quantum Fund and others are still involved in natural gas, fracking, et al. It's all easily searchable.

And don't forget the other hypocrite fav of the left, Warren Buffet. A key opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Environment? Nooooooo.. His company wholly owns BNSF railroad which makes billions from dangerously hauling crude oil above ground.

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Oh, his Quantum Fund and others are still involved in natural gas, fracking, et al. It's all easily searchable.

And don't forget the other hypocrite fav of the left, Warren Buffet. A key opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Environment? Nooooooo.. His company wholly owns BNSF railroad which makes billions from dangerously hauling crude oil above ground.

Oh you fomenter.

Beebs52 wrote:Oh, his Quantum Fund and others are still involved in natural gas, fracking, et al. It's all easily searchable.

Here in Pennsylvania, even the Democrats support natural gas and fracking. They're better than coal.

BackInTex wrote:And don't forget the other hypocrite fav of the left, Warren Buffet. A key opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Environment? Nooooooo.. His company wholly owns BNSF railroad which makes billions from dangerously hauling crude oil above ground.

Every time an oil train derails, it makes me wonder why pipelines are supposedly bad for the environment.

jarnon wrote:Every time an oil train derails, it makes me wonder why pipelines are supposedly bad for the environment.

Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil, gas and refined products.

The only thing more environmentally friendly is not transporting it at all. And it is foolish to consider that an option. Though many in the anti-keystone crowd think that is an option.

jarnon wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Oh, his Quantum Fund and others are still involved in natural gas, fracking, et al. It's all easily searchable.

Here in Pennsylvania, even the Democrats support natural gas and fracking. They're better than coal.

BackInTex wrote:And don't forget the other hypocrite fav of the left, Warren Buffet. A key opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Environment? Nooooooo.. His company wholly owns BNSF railroad which makes billions from dangerously hauling crude oil above ground.

Every time an oil train derails, it makes me wonder why pipelines are supposedly bad for the environment.

It appears you agree with those who seemingly philosophically disagree with many left leaning groups. I applaud your discretion. Many think fracking is the end of the world. I guess m original question remains, the loopiness about science that isn't settled and the bullshit propounded by its proponents, that isn't grounded in any more reality than a Hunger Games story. President Snow exists. I mean.

BackInTex wrote:

jarnon wrote:Every time an oil train derails, it makes me wonder why pipelines are supposedly bad for the environment.

Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil, gas and refined products.

The only thing more environmentally friendly is not transporting it at all. And it is foolish to consider that an option. Though many in the anti-keystone crowd think that is an option.

Although I support the building of the Keystone pipeline (it is safer than trains), one of the not-so-talked about reasons it's not getting built is it's suppressing oil prices in the US.

If it's built, the only thing it will do is speed Canadian tar sands oil...the the world market.

Brent Crude is still ~$10 a barrel higher than West Texas Intermediate.

So if the pipeline is built, you'll start paying a little more for gas, and Canadian oil companies will get richer.

When you want to see what the real reasons for something getting lobbied to be done are...follow the money.

Canadian oil companies will get richer.

Any argument that includes something like this is suspect, in my opinion. Either we all will benefit from it or we won't. It is irrelevant who will profit from it and how much. That will be decided in due course by the market.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:What did you think of James Inhofe bringing a snowball to the Senate floor as though he thought snow in Washington, DC in February disproved climate change?

I science class they told me an inconsistent fact was enough to disprove an hypothesis

Warm water evaporates which causes higher humidity which causes more snow.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Either we all will benefit from it or we won't.

How do you figure that?

Canadian oil companies will get richer.

Flock wrote:Any argument that includes something like this is suspect, in my opinion. Either we all will benefit from it or we won't. It is irrelevant who will profit from it and how much. That will be decided in due course by the market.

The Canadian (specifically tar sands) oil is more expensive (by factors) to produce so the margins will always be less. I don't know what the exact b/e price is but it is in the $40s.

jarnon wrote:Although I support the building of the Keystone pipeline (it is safer than trains), one of the not-so-talked about reasons it's not getting built is it's suppressing oil prices in the US.
If it's built, the only thing it will do is speed Canadian tar sands oil...the the world market.

Brent Crude is still ~$10 a barrel higher than West Texas Intermediate.

So if the pipeline is built, you'll start paying a little more for gas, and Canadian oil companies will get richer.

When you want to see what the real reasons for something getting lobbied to be done are...follow the money.

I'm not following what you are saying. Are you saying that oil prices are currently being depressed because the pipeline is not built? Or are you saying if built it will suppress oil prices?

How is it not built suppressing prices, if that is what you are saying?

If it suppresses prices by being built (which makes more sense to me), I doubt the money to follow from the oil companies has that influence on those leaders opposing it. The oil companies are the enemy to those folks.

Jeemie wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Either we all will benefit from it or we won't.

How do you figure that?

Will the economic benefits of building the pipeline as proposed outweigh the risks? That is what this whole debate is about. Not if the Canadian Oil companies will get richer or not. The flip side of that argument is "is it being held up because the government wants more of the action". By putting in that 'get richer' comment, it looks like you assume the Canadian oil companies are automatically the bad guys. If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

Well, for one reason, big business is owned by its shareholders who are largely motivated by profit. Government (at least in countries like the United States) is "owned" by voters who have other interests.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

Well, for one reason, big business is owned by its shareholders who are largely motivated by profit. Government (at least in countries like the United States) is "owned" by voters who have other interests.

Do you really believe that? That is a very simplistic view of things.

Big business may well be driven by profit, but they have to produce something that is valuable in order to make a profit. They can't force anyone to buy what they produce. (Unless, of course, they conspire with the Government to force people to pay for something they don't want or need).

In my view, the Government is the entity that is out of control. The people we vote for are a very small part of the leviathan that the government has become. And they don't control it. It controls them. And the leviathan's interest is in continuing it's existence and growing itself.

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:What did you think of James Inhofe bringing a snowball to the Senate floor as though he thought snow in Washington, DC in February disproved climate change?

I science class they told me an inconsistent fact was enough to disprove an hypothesis

Warm water evaporates which causes higher humidity which causes more snow.

The End of Snow

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opini ... -snow.html

That situation led the climatologist Daniel Scott, a professor of global change and tourism at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, to analyze potential venues for future Winter Games. His thought was that with a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games. He concluded that of the 19 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics, as few as 10 might be cold enough by midcentury to host them again. By 2100, that number shrinks to 6.

Kids won't know snow

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the end of snow in Virginia

Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/article ... times.html

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Either we all will benefit from it or we won't.

How do you figure that?

Will the economic benefits of building the pipeline as proposed outweigh the risks? That is what this whole debate is about. Not if the Canadian Oil companies will get richer or not. The flip side of that argument is "is it being held up because the government wants more of the action". By putting in that 'get richer' comment, it looks like you assume the Canadian oil companies are automatically the bad guys. If you assume greed is bad, why don't you ever think that perhaps the government is greedy as well. (When I say 'you' I mean people who are always bashing big business, not you in particular).

Americans along the pipeline route will bear the risks. Why should we ask Americans to bear a risk in order to benefit Canadian (or any other non-American) companies? --Bob