I'm going to try to post this yet another way. Today I haven't been able to get any replies to actually post on the Utah astronomy forum. I got one original composition type test to post. This time I copied another original composition type post to note pad, edited it, then copied it to this original post. This is a lot of effort. I hope it works. The timing of this is atrocious because for some reason when I replied earlier this morning, the reply never made it to Utah-astronomy. I kept waiting and it never showed up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wrote: While this is closer to an appropriate response than the one last week, it doesn't really provide the science or claimed science that invalidates the science or claimed science of the information Colton posted last week. I also don't agree that the posting was only remotely astronomical. Except for the few references to the Earth, it was entirely astronomical. The reason I reacted the way I did last week was that It appeared to me you were attempting to censor any information which might conflict with your own opinion on the subject. In "Broca's Brain", Sagan discussed this sort censorship using the way they handled Velikovski's ideas when he tried to publish them versus how they should have handled them. So the only appropriate response to Colton's post, if you didn't agree with it, would be the scientific reasons you think it's wrong. In response to Seth Jarvis writing: Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate researchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth
I've got to ask, "What science did Don post?" I can't find any. Linking to the blog of an oil-state, rabidly anti-environmental senator doesn't (thank goodness) constitute science. The essence of Don's post was "What about the Medieval Warming Period? There wasn't one. The paleoclimatological (now there's a fun word to type) research performed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is revealing. The findings are highly readable and to the point: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html Don's post also offered a link to an article from CanadaFreePress.com, a website dedicated to pretty much anything far right-wing, especially climate change denial and fundamentalist Christianity. The CFP article offered was titled, "New Findings Indicate Today's Greenhouse Gas Levels Not Unusual," written by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, both of www.nrsp.com. NRSP is the "Natural Resources Stewardship Project." Warm and fuzzy name, don't you think? One problem, though, is that the NRSP is an organization created and run by energy industry lobbyists. The NRSP's mailing address is the same as the High Park Advocacy Group, which is the PR firm used by the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association. Tom Harris, one of the authors of the article Don cites, is the director of a public affairs and public policy at that very same energy industry PR firm. The article's other author, Dr. Tim Ball, works for the National Center for Public Policy Research, an organization that loves to publish papers questioning global climate change, thanks to a $225,000 grant from Exxon Mobil. Cigarettes are safe, installing air bags will cripple the auto industry, and global warming is a hoax. How do I know all this? The corporate lobbyists told me so. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 5:53 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis I'm going to try to post this yet another way. Today I haven't been able to get any replies to actually post on the Utah astronomy forum. I got one original composition type test to post. This time I copied another original composition type post to note pad, edited it, then copied it to this original post. This is a lot of effort. I hope it works. The timing of this is atrocious because for some reason when I replied earlier this morning, the reply never made it to Utah-astronomy. I kept waiting and it never showed up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I wrote: While this is closer to an appropriate response than the one last week, it doesn't really provide the science or claimed science that invalidates the science or claimed science of the information Colton posted last week. I also don't agree that the posting was only remotely astronomical. Except for the few references to the Earth, it was entirely astronomical. The reason I reacted the way I did last week was that It appeared to me you were attempting to censor any information which might conflict with your own opinion on the subject. In "Broca's Brain", Sagan discussed this sort censorship using the way they handled Velikovski's ideas when he tried to publish them versus how they should have handled them. So the only appropriate response to Colton's post, if you didn't agree with it, would be the scientific reasons you think it's wrong. In response to Seth Jarvis writing: Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate researchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Gee, you sound like a disgruntled oil company employee. Quoting Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org>:
I've got to ask, "What science did Don post?" I can't find any. Linking to the blog of an oil-state, rabidly anti-environmental senator doesn't (thank goodness) constitute science.
The essence of Don's post was "What about the Medieval Warming Period?
There wasn't one. The paleoclimatological (now there's a fun word to type) research performed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is revealing. The findings are highly readable and to the point:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Don's post also offered a link to an article from CanadaFreePress.com, a website dedicated to pretty much anything far right-wing, especially climate change denial and fundamentalist Christianity.
The CFP article offered was titled, "New Findings Indicate Today's Greenhouse Gas Levels Not Unusual," written by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, both of www.nrsp.com.
NRSP is the "Natural Resources Stewardship Project." Warm and fuzzy name, don't you think?
One problem, though, is that the NRSP is an organization created and run by energy industry lobbyists. The NRSP's mailing address is the same as the High Park Advocacy Group, which is the PR firm used by the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association.
Tom Harris, one of the authors of the article Don cites, is the director of a public affairs and public policy at that very same energy industry PR firm.
The article's other author, Dr. Tim Ball, works for the National Center for Public Policy Research, an organization that loves to publish papers questioning global climate change, thanks to a $225,000 grant from Exxon Mobil.
Cigarettes are safe, installing air bags will cripple the auto industry, and global warming is a hoax. How do I know all this? The corporate lobbyists told me so.
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 5:53 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis
I'm going to try to post this yet another way. Today I haven't been able to get any replies to actually post on the Utah astronomy forum. I got one original composition type test to post. This time I copied another original composition type post to note pad, edited it, then copied it to this original post. This is a lot of effort. I hope it works.
The timing of this is atrocious because for some reason when I replied earlier this morning, the reply never made it to Utah-astronomy. I kept waiting and it never showed up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I wrote:
While this is closer to an appropriate response than the one last week, it doesn't really provide the science or claimed science that invalidates the science or claimed science of the information Colton posted last week. I also don't agree that the posting was only remotely astronomical. Except for the few references to the Earth, it was entirely astronomical. The reason I reacted the way I did last week was that It appeared to me you were attempting to censor any information which might conflict with your own opinion on the subject. In "Broca's Brain", Sagan discussed this sort censorship using the way they handled Velikovski's ideas when he tried to publish them versus how they should have handled them. So the only appropriate response to Colton's post, if you didn't agree with it, would be the scientific reasons you think it's wrong.
In response to Seth Jarvis writing:
Bill,
I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?"
The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate researchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us.
Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them?
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
There's no such thing as a disgruntled oil company employee. Listening to Doug Wright the other day, a caller mentioned that his son was working the rigs in Wyoming, and in addition to a terrific wage, was bringing-home $30K and $40K Christmas bonuses. If the guys on the rigs are getting bonuses like that, imagine what the managers and executives are getting. That's where your $3+ a gallon goes. Time to nationalize the energy industry at large, or at least regulate it more closely, like other utilities. Consumer costs are "astronomical". On 5/22/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Gee, you sound like a disgruntled oil company employee.
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE: THE PARTY YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH TO WILL BE OUT OF THE SHOP TILL AFTER CHRISTMAS. HE IS CURRENTLY HITCH HIKING TO WYOMING TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AT AN OIL RIG. TRY BACK AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU... Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
There's no such thing as a disgruntled oil company employee. Listening to Doug Wright the other day, a caller mentioned that his son was working the rigs in Wyoming, and in addition to a terrific wage, was bringing-home $30K and $40K Christmas bonuses. If the guys on the rigs are getting bonuses like that, imagine what the managers and executives are getting. That's where your $3+ a gallon goes.
Time to nationalize the energy industry at large, or at least regulate it more closely, like other utilities. Consumer costs are "astronomical".
On 5/22/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Gee, you sound like a disgruntled oil company employee.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
No kidding, brother, no kidding. Take me with you! You know, if gas hits four or five bucks a gallon, we might have some good old fashioned lynchings! Bet gas prices would drop like a stone, as rope prices went up... On 5/22/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE: THE PARTY YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH WILL BE OUT OF THE SHOP TILL AFTER CHRISTMAS. HE IS CURRENTLY HITCH HIKING TO WYOMING TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AT AN OIL RIG. TRY BACK AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU...
FYI Gas on Maui is $3.75 for regular, $3.85 for Plus and $3.95 for Premium, we should see gas at about $4.25-4.35 for regular this summer. Bring on those 400HP SUV's ......................... Aloha Rob
When I was stationed there in 1970, I had a 63' VW bug (great on gas) and I would have to get an early start and run at it, but it would take me damned near the whole evening on the H3 to make it over the Pali to get to Honolulu. By the time I came "rolling" into town, they were sweeping Hotel street of drunks, and my liberty card was about to expire. ;) Get yourself a scooter! Quoting Rob Ratkowski Photography <ratkwski@hawaii.rr.com>:
FYI Gas on Maui is $3.75 for regular, $3.85 for Plus and $3.95 for Premium, we should see gas at about $4.25-4.35 for regular this summer. Bring on those 400HP SUV's .........................
Aloha Rob
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hummmm a scooter to 10K ft. With my Accord, I get a decent mileage and I think the next car is going to be a Prius. I still need room for my location gear so I need a little room for cases, bags, tripod, etc, better get a roof rack too ;^) Aloha Rob PS Trades have died, we have a major case of VOG, I can barely make out the West Maui Mts about 15 mi. across the valley. In Honolulu they're calling it smog but I can taste the sulphur in the air
Gas is the cheapest thing you put in a car anyway Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:04 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis When I was stationed there in 1970, I had a 63' VW bug (great on gas) and I would have to get an early start and run at it, but it would take me damned near the whole evening on the H3 to make it over the Pali to get to Honolulu. By the time I came "rolling" into town, they were sweeping Hotel street of drunks, and my liberty card was about to expire. ;) Get yourself a scooter! Quoting Rob Ratkowski Photography <ratkwski@hawaii.rr.com>:
FYI Gas on Maui is $3.75 for regular, $3.85 for Plus and $3.95 for Premium, we should see gas at about $4.25-4.35 for regular this summer. Bring on those 400HP SUV's .........................
Aloha Rob
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
It seems to me that with all the geothermal potential Hawaii is sitting on and the limited distances available to drive, that a couple of geothermal power plants and the importation of some electric cars, could make Hawaii the first "energy independent" state in the USA. Barney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Ratkowski Photography" <ratkwski@hawaii.rr.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis | FYI Gas on Maui is $3.75 for regular, $3.85 for Plus and $3.95 for | Premium, we should see gas at about $4.25-4.35 for regular this | summer. Bring on those 400HP SUV's ......................... | | | Aloha | Rob | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com |
It seems to me that with all the geothermal potential Hawaii is sitting on and the limited distances available to drive, that a couple of geothermal power plants and the importation of some electric cars, could make Hawaii the first "energy independent" state in the USA.
The Big Island is the only Island that has geothermal availability and efforts there to produce power meets w/ much 'local' resentment. Also the dissolved minerals in the volcanic steam tend to clog the turbines w/ deposits costing more to rebuild than what is saved. There is a big push for recycling, alternative fuels, wind power and electric vehicles. As much as we are the smallest state, we are also the only state that defines it county borders by the Pacific Ocean. Also too, we're small but many of the roads are uphill. I just too a walk on the beach, trades are filling in, did a CostCo run and then drove home, up to 1600 ft. elevation. Haleakala Highway is also the steepest road in the USA, 28 mi. to get to 10K ft., it takes me 50 minutes from the house to the observatory, kinda sweet I think !! An electric vehicle or 'scooter' might be an adventure and an all day outing Aloha Rob
"laughing until I fell out of my chair" Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:03 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE: THE PARTY YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH TO WILL BE OUT OF THE SHOP TILL AFTER CHRISTMAS. HE IS CURRENTLY HITCH HIKING TO WYOMING TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AT AN OIL RIG. TRY BACK AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU... Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
There's no such thing as a disgruntled oil company employee. Listening to Doug Wright the other day, a caller mentioned that his son was working the rigs in Wyoming, and in addition to a terrific wage, was bringing-home $30K and $40K Christmas bonuses. If the guys on the rigs are getting bonuses like that, imagine what the managers and executives are getting. That's where your $3+ a gallon goes.
Time to nationalize the energy industry at large, or at least regulate it more closely, like other utilities. Consumer costs are "astronomical".
On 5/22/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Gee, you sound like a disgruntled oil company employee.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
This is off topic but commenting on the recent discussion. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on where the high price of gasoline comes from. They said about $.38 of the $1.00 increase in prices comes from OPEC increasing crude oil prices from $50 to $64 a barrel by limiting production. There is no shortage of crude oil. The U. S. imports 65 percent of it crude oil. The U.S. Oil companies only own about 5 percent of the world's supply. The rest is owned primarily by OPEC (Arab states, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela); Russia; England/Norway and Canada. Right now because of refinery shut-downs (regular maintenance or conspiracy) and less gasoline available from Europe we have a shortage of unleaded gasoline. We normally import about 14 percent of our gasoline from Europe but tight supplies in Europe have limited our imports. The result is refiners are making a pre-tax profit of $30 on each barrel, about $.78 per gallon instead of there historical $.18 a gallon profit. The actual price of unleaded gasoline is primarily set by the New York Commodities Exchange and can be greatly influenced by speculators, mainly large hedge funds. Oil companies only account for 20 percent of the trades. The independent retailer is barely breaking even, often making as little as $.15 per gallon before operating costs. When you factor in credit card costs of 2 percent or $.07 a gallon they are left with about $.08 gross profit on a gallon of gasoline. Finally, I attended a tax conference where UDOT asked us which of two alternative choices they favored to fund their efforts to maintain and build more highways: 1. A $.56 per gallon increase in gasoline taxes or 2. Toll roads on several proposed new highways as well as I-15. The Utah Truckers Association was adamant they wanted the gasoline tax instead of tolls. Which do you favor? Food for thought. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Bob Moore Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:50 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis "laughing until I fell out of my chair" Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of diveboss@xmission.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:03 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Response to Seth Jarvis THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE: THE PARTY YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH TO WILL BE OUT OF THE SHOP TILL AFTER CHRISTMAS. HE IS CURRENTLY HITCH HIKING TO WYOMING TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AT AN OIL RIG. TRY BACK AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU... Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
There's no such thing as a disgruntled oil company employee. Listening to Doug Wright the other day, a caller mentioned that his son was working the rigs in Wyoming, and in addition to a terrific wage, was bringing-home $30K and $40K Christmas bonuses. If the guys on the rigs are getting bonuses like that, imagine what the managers and executives are getting. That's where your $3+ a gallon goes.
Time to nationalize the energy industry at large, or at least regulate it more closely, like other utilities. Consumer costs are "astronomical".
On 5/22/07, diveboss@xmission.com <diveboss@xmission.com> wrote:
Gee, you sound like a disgruntled oil company employee.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Toll roads. A user tax is the most fair. My dad was a long-haul trucker and died on the job (not due to accident). It's a tough job but I have no sympathy for those choosing the occupation. There are better ways to move much of the country's freight over long and medium distances. Assuming there is no shortage of crude oil, I'm beyond interest in why the prices are so high. Ultimately it's demand, as with any and all non-regulated products. Time to regulate petroleum products as a public utility. On 5/25/07, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
The Utah Truckers Association was adamant they wanted the gasoline tax instead of tolls. Which do you favor?
The problem with the below link is they cite Mann's data, which the Sargasso Sea data contradicts as well as does the Little Ice Age. This is basically circular reasoning since it is the Mann's data that is disputed by almost all of the opponents. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html In "Near-Term Climate Prediction Using Ice-Core Data from Greenland", Sergey R. Kotov, Institute of Precambrian Geology and Geochronology, Saint Petersburg, Russia shows that current global temperatures are not unusual over the past 10,000 years. I could cite numerous other papers. The main points to be made are: 1. Have we had past episodes of warm climate that are comparable to today? I think there are compelling reasons to answer yes to this question. Before the current need to "get rid" of the Medieval Warming Period, I saw a PBS special on Erik-the-Red and Leif Erickson settling Greenland in which it was clearly accepted that the earth was warmer then. They had to leave Greenland several decades later as the earth cooled and we went into the Little Ice Age. Both of these periods are well documented historically. 2. Are the CO2 levels in the atmosphere much higher than in the past? Antarctic ice core data indicates that they are but they are not direct measurements of CO2. If the recent article in Energy and Environment by German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck is correct than more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere during the last 100 years contradict the ice core assumptions. His data shows that CO2 levels have fluctuated greatly over the past 100 years and are not currently at higher than "normal" levels. 3. Why is there such an amazing correlation between solar activity and earth temperatures. The book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" (my email doesn't do italics) by NASA scientist Keith Schatten and Douglas Hoyt shows page after page of charts showing correlations between solar activity and global temperatures. As I said before, get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at the difference in sunspot activity for the 1800's versus the 1900's. I tend to weigh heavily historical information and books (such as Schatten's) written before global warming became such a political football because proponents on both sides of the issue now have so much to lose.
participants (8)
-
Barney B. -
Bob Moore -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Don J. Colton -
Lockman -
Rob Ratkowski Photography -
Seth Jarvis