ROSEN: The new-energy depression

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

August 1, 2008

2:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

Spoken like a true Republican with head firmly planted in the sand. Rosen, you and your disaster capitalist friends have done your best over the last eight years to ruin the American economy and respect for the rule of law. Of course you just represent the logical endpoint of Saint Ronnie's "Morning in America" which in reality is turning out to be "Apocalypse Now" brought to us by Oilmeisters Cheney and Bush. Keep the oil and blood flowing and don’t ask any questions.

Killing the other, whether it is nature, indigenous cultures, or civil liberties seems to be a genuine trait of Republicans. If you can’t control it then try and kill it via the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on the Constitution, the war on the natural world… And by all means do your best to capitalize and make a profit off the death and destruction as it occurs.

Soon the destruction of humanity’s habitat will be complete and the living biosphere will adapt and eliminate the insatiable hungry ghosts stalking the earth. That’s you, me and the rest of “advanced civilization” about to recede into the dustbin of history, choking on our own greed and stupidity.

But by all means keep on keeping on…. And good luck with all that oil and your stock portfolio - If you manage to steal a third Bush term and install Grandpa you might be forced to eat the paper that your investments are printed on for lunch, as the world burns around you. Praise Jesus and pass the mustard.
August 1, 2008

4:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

"drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression"

Mr Rosen just like all the other rightwing nuts come out of the cave and see what is going on now.
August 1, 2008

5:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Scootie writes:

The over/under for non-relevant, off topic, socialistic rhetoric is at 8:15am; c'mon HTH, I've got the under.
August 1, 2008

6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"If you manage to steal a third Bush term and install Grandpa...."

Taoistblockhead,
If McCain wins both the popular and electoral votes as Bush did in 2004, does that mean that McCain won the election or that he stole it?
I'm not saying that's what will happen. In fact, my own guess right now is that Obama will win the election- but that is just a guess.
I'm just curious why it is that when the Democratic candidate loses an election liberals feel the need to scream that it's not fair and the election was stolen. It makes you guys sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum after losing a game, screaming that the opponent cheated or didn't play fair.
August 1, 2008

6:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

taoistblockhead - you and the voices in your head must be very lonely together.
August 1, 2008

6:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

ML writes:

"If you elect Barack Obama president, he will massively expand the welfare state, drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression, undermine U.S. foreign policy, embolden our enemies and instigate a nuclear holocaust."
Gee, hasn't W already accomplished 3 out of 5?
August 1, 2008

6:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

Mr Rosen
This microgeneration windmill culls household electricity draw by 33% coupled with heat pump technology according to manufacturers and DOE ratings not only reduces residential monthly energy consumption by an added 40-60% this per household 73-93% per month savings will be feeding back into the grid cutting consumers cost and with regular maintenance these devices perpetually pay for themselves!

Well NO WONDER you are downplaying this technology, to quote Mr Bush our economy would collapse NOW WE SEE the real truth is this quite literally breaks the coal, oil & natural gas industries consumer stranglehold for that of which you belong is the "OUR" he references

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...
....This is blue skies thinking - but it needs something of the kind to make individuals change their habits. Everywhere there are green shoots of what might be done, if serious money and political attention were devoted to it now. Take micro-generation. You can buy a small windmill to stick in the garden or on the side of your house for just £900: it plugs into an ordinary 13 amp domestic plug, cuts electricity bills by a third and can feed into the grid. The former energy minister has one.
August 1, 2008

6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

windskull, how many years does your wonderful technology take to pay for itself in full?
August 1, 2008

6:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

All the watermelons (with the exception of Eli, who is definitely not a watermelon) are up bright and early this morning, pushing their envirosocialism and ignoring the facts.

...most of them are too dull to even see that Rosen was being fecitious, making fun of envirosocialistic doomsayers when he said, "If you elect Barack Obama president, he will massively expand the welfare state, drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression, undermine U.S. foreign policy, embolden our enemies and instigate a nuclear holocaust." Get real all, Rosen doesn't believe that, but it is certainly as far out the to the Right as Gore and the mentioned Youtube video are out to the Left. Scare in the votes. Well, they have this crowd fooled, don't they? Both scenarios unrealistic.
August 1, 2008

7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"All the watermelons (with the exception of Eli, who is definitely not a watermelon) "
Spencerr,
I will have you know, sir, that I am a proud communist. Damn you righties and your Rush Limbaugh inspired willful ignorance! Don't you make me post some links that I didn't read, spencerr, because I swear to God I will do it.
August 1, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

spencerr since jethronomics is evidently your forte' pull off them clod crunchers air out your digits and try to abacus the simplisticy behind converting the windmill cost of 900 British pounds to King George`s near worthless dullers...if that`s too stressful try xe.com it will do the math for you!
When this article was first published May 2005 you can find it by doing a "G" search of "capitulation to nuclear" click the first entry by Polly Toyner
The paragraph I noted is about 2/3 down the page the windmill could be bought for about $500 US and a 2.5ton 13seer heat pump can be bought wholesale for a grand with sizeable federal tax credits check out the powersave website & with Republicans blocking energy assistance funding & rumors of $5LP &$9/gal propane this winter you tell me how quick you will recoup your investment
August 1, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

windskull, no need for the insults, just asking a simple question. I have always heard, without doing much follow up research, that doing things like installing windmills and solar or photovoltaic technology on one's house takes upwards of thirty years to pay themselves off. And besides, I bet you will make more than a few of your neighbors mad if all of a sudden there is a windmill sticking out more than ten feet over the roof of your house.

I don't feel like fighting with you about how economically-retarded extreme environmentalism is. Call me Jethro all you want. Nuclear is cheap (perhaps the cheapest) and clean, and that still isn't good enough for you.
August 1, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

seeingeyeseesall writes:

My home's renewable energy systems reduce demand on a coal fired plant by enough to allow Mr. Rosen to turn up his A/C without worry during this unusual hot spell we're having... of course, it couldn't be related to the global warming myth ...
August 1, 2008

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And windskull,

Somehow the author of your "magic bullet" wind article completely blows off nuclear...something about nuclear proliferation and waste disposal, when nuclear is the cheapest power on anyone's grid right now.

No one doubts current global warming (though it has actually cooled slightly in the last ten years); they doubt that it is man made.

There is no magic bullet, but nuclear and new clean coal technologies are just as viable as solutions to our energy chrisis, as are wind and solar.

Furthermore, your author pegs herself as an envirosocialist when she starts railing about how we can use the buying and selling of carbon useage quotas to redistribute income from the horrible rich energy abusers to the righteous poor.

You don't think that we have already done enough to work on helping renewable techology??? Gas is four dollars a gallon. Let's just say that the market has already provided enough incentive...not to mention the subsidies green companies and their users get.

Government nannyism, in the name of environmentalism and for the true cause of socialism.
August 1, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

stuckiniowa writes:

Windskull -- are you talking about an open or closed loop geothermal heat pump? If open loop -- do you see that as being a waste of water -- our next precious resource?

Are you planning on using your heatpump for your hot water also - or just for heating? Is 2.5 ton big enough, or do you need secondary sources for your heating? Who is going to install this heat pump that you bought wholesale? how much is it going to cost -- from my understanding somewhere in the range of $10,000.

Just asking.
August 1, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

It's too bad some people are drawing such a hard line in the sand against renewable energies. The market is actually progressing rapidly in that area, especially in terms of powering our homes. For example, some companies are now offering solar financing that removes the previous price barrier associated with the upfront cost of investment to install a residential solar energy system.

Regarding driving, we will depend on oil for some time, it's true. But, even there the market is taking action, with more and more businesses allowing telecommuting and four-day work weeks. While that may not lower the price of gas, it will still result in paying less for it if one can simply use less of it each week. (Might even do some cultural good as families will have more time to spend at home and keep a better eye on what their kids are up to!)

And for those who blame the "environmental extremists" for the high price of gas, well, if it's easier to assign blame and point fingers, so be it. But that entire argument rests on the assumptions that we don't drill much here in the US and that what we do drill is mostly sold here.

Both are untrue assumptions. The US is the third largest oil producer in the world, and my understanding is that 60% of what is produced is sold on the world markets, not domestically.

Someone on this forum once told me he didn't care if we were the third largest producer of oil, that he still didn't consider us serious players because we weren't drilling everywhere there is oil. I guess that would make no country a real player, since there are untapped reserves in every oil-producing country. I guess if you're in the timber business, you're not a serious player if you're not chopping down every forest, or if you're in the food business, you're not a serious player if you're not growing food on every available piece of land.

Some increasingly weird logic coming out of the anti-renewable energy crowd. I would say THOSE people are the extremists, led by very slick and persuasive propaganda-spreaders like Newt Gingrich and the Rocky's own Mike Rosen.

I don't think history is going to look kindly at these obstructionist naysayers. In fact, I think they will be squarely categorized with the superstitious extremists who burned Copernicus at the stake.
August 1, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

spencerr/eli

Yes, and no.

Yes, they (the ultra-libs) take Rosen literally -- way too literally -- all the time. They do not give him credit for any sense of humor ... or anything else, for that matter.

No, they will never admit that a Republican can "win" an election against a popular Democrat without some underlying fraud.

But, then, you already knew both answers.

Count on it: Rosen's last paragraph will be cut-and-pasted continually through the rest of the day, out of context.

Count on it: if McCain wins (a highly unlikely event) there will be cries of "foul" ... no matter what the margin is.

Have a good, hot Friday!
August 1, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

mytwosense,

Good morning! How's the fam?

I think you hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph...market! :)

And with a decline in gas useage, there will be a decline in price, no matter how marginal. Hey, it all adds up.

And any increase of supply, even if it goes into the world market, will lower costs, no matter how marginal.

It's funny how the price of oil and gas fell suddenly during the coincidence of two events, Bush repealing dear old dad's freeze on domestic exploration and news that Americans drove much less than during the same time last year. Maybe we will see the speculation problem (only part of the problem to be sure) start to wane now that it appears that oil is on its way down.

We will probably never see two dollars a gallon again, but hey, I'll take a five cent decrease in gas any day.
August 1, 2008

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"It's too bad some people are drawing such a hard line in the sand against renewable energies. The market is actually progressing rapidly in that area, especially in terms of powering our homes."

Personally, I think the technology regarding renewable energy is great. No need to draw a line in the sand against them- the more that is developed, the better off everyone is. Where it becomes a problem though is when government gets involved.

On another thread a while back, one poster gave a link to a company selling solar roof shingles. When installed in the home they were incorporated into the house's energy system, and would provide about 30% of that house's power.
As with any new technology, the stuff was kind of expensive. However, there is virtually no reason to think that as the demand increases and as the technology improves the price will drop considerably. This happens with every other type of technology that attracts the interest of consumers, and it happens without the help of government.

As the technology for more efficient energy improves, as it gradually has been for 150 years, the technology will become more affordable and will appear in more and more homes. This trend has been going on for a long time, so why do we need government to take care of things now?
August 1, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Good points, Eli! You crazy commy!
August 1, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Why don't we drill in Iraq. I hear they have the second largest oil reserves in the world.
August 1, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Good morning Eli & Spencerr!

Regarding government involvement, I guess I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. Maybe you could further detail.

What immediately came to my mind, and this may not have been what you meant, is government financing in various ways, through tax incentives or awarding contracts.

I believe government has done both for numerous industries, especially in the arena of awarding contracts. Think about it, Henry Ford's Model T wouldn't have been much of a market smash if there weren't roads for it drive on. The US has always poured money into our transportation infrastructure, and that's made a lot of private businesses rich, and employed hundreds of thousands of people.

And I don't mind my tax dollars going towards research of an effective electric car battery. I believe the Japanese government almost fully funded the same for the development of the Prius, which is the biggest selling hybrid car on the world market.

I see government involvement as a plus in several ways, in terms of reducing our need to drive as much. Here are a couple:

1) Investing heavily in mass transit.

2) Lifting arcane zoning laws to allow for more mixed use residential and commercial development in existing urban and suburban areas.

Both would be a boom to the construction industry, which is struggling right now, at least in certain sectors. If we had a state-of-the-art mass transit system in all the major cities and larger towns, that would reduce the need to drive individual cars, while providing a more comfortable mode of transportation than buses.

With the second, we would develop living places where people could work and shop much close to home than they can in many neighborhoods. You look at a place like Highlands Ranch with its labyrinth of residential streets. None of those streets can have a small grocery store, a restaurant, etc. on them. The kinds of locally owned businesses that are practically extinct in many suburbs. A lot of those streets don't even have sidewalks! Residents have to drive anytime they want to shop or eat out. It may only be a matter of a few miles, but that adds up in gas and traffic when tens of thousands of people are forced to do that.

A lot of wealth was created in this country through the construction industry. I say we keep 'em in business, to improve the quality of our lives in some new ways. And I don't see how we can do that without some government financing, just like we used government financing to build our current auto infrastructure.
August 1, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

The Democrat policy to restrict development of conventional energies bears significant responsibility for our high energy prices now. The Democrats want high energy prices and severe restrictions on development of conventional energy sources to push their Utopian view of energy. No conservative argues that private individuals should not invest in any energy source, conventional or non conventional. The Democrats and their green allies are pursuing an elitist and immoral policy to purposely drive up energy prices by restricting large amounts of conventional energy from world markets. The Democrats are terrified that development of conventional energy sources will lower energy prices and make non conventional energy sources even less competitive.

The mandates and subsidies for renewable energy have produced boondoggles such as corn based ethanol. If these technologies were forced to compete without subsidies and mandates, we would see real solutions, not boondoggles. If the Democrats and their green allies prevail, an energy meltdown is coming. Not enough new power plants and refinery capacity are being added. Many coal fired plants have been cancelled. The renewable substitutes are much more expensive.

The misguided Democrat policies are clear to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is developing all available energy sources, not just the favored energy sources. The developing world is developing plenty of coal and nuclear plants. Every country that has oil and natural gas reserves is aggressively developing them. The Democrats and their green allies are alone in their delusions and war against conventional energy sources.
August 1, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "As the technology for more efficient energy improves, as it gradually has been for 150 years, the technology will become more affordable and will appear in more and more homes. This trend has been going on for a long time, so why do we need government to take care of things now?"

Well, the technology for energy-efficient solar systems, both residential and commercial, is market-viable now. That's why more and more people are having them installed in their homes, why businesses like Whole Foods have them (at least in some of their stores), and why commercial plants are being built all over the place, like the one that is going to power a great deal of DIA.

Tax incentives encourage more people and businesses to install them, which will help to drive prices down for everyone. If only a smattering of people are installing these systems, there's not much capital available to accommodate price decreases, much less continued R&D.
August 1, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Auto infrastructure crucial for economy! You betcha'. It is a public good like the military, which anyone can use without depriving anyone else's use of it (if you ignore congestion, which we can for this point). Public goods such as police, fire department, military, and roads require public financing because of the freeloader problem.

And you know that your beloved battery causes environmental degradation of a different sort at huge levels, right?

I think that the market will take care of mass transit by itself eventually, especially as congestion becomes a bigger problem (as it is now in D.C.). I don't think we should spend huge tax dollars on it because it is not even close to self-sufficient and is not necessary for industry and commerce, though it would certainly ease congestion and gasoline consumption. I hear that there is an entrepreneur looking into some sort of crazy mass transit scheme moving east and west...similar to a ski lift or something like that. I don't know the details, but apparently, it is not too expensive and will provide him with a handsome profit if he can be successful with it.

Lastly, even though it goes against your grains, Highlands Ranch and a lot of communities were built goofily the way they were by home development builders because people don't like the traffic caused by using their sidestreets. Nobody will venture down richsnob lane because it probably just goes in a circle or dead ends. I prefer living in a neighborhood like that, rather than the Englewood one I grew up in, where if Broadway got busy, people would just fill up Logan or even one of the smaller streets with stop signs.
August 1, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

mmanino: "The rest of the world is developing all available energy sources, not just the favored energy sources. The developing world is developing plenty of coal and nuclear plants. Every country that has oil and natural gas reserves is aggressively developing them."

Again, the US is the THIRD largest producer of oil in the world. And did you know we're the SECOND largest producer of coal?

What exactly will it take to drive home these basic facts to those of you that continue to bleat the US isn't a major, major player in the energy industry?
August 1, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

mytwosense, if the U.S. refined Colorado and ANWR coal to the maximum sustainable tempo, they would be the number one producer of oil in the world, and we have the largest coal reserves in the world, so why are we only the second largest producer?
August 1, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, yes, any car battery, in fact, any good that isn't biodegradable poses environmental issues. And mass transit and living closer to where we work and shop could reduce the need for so many cars. At least it might compel more families to do with one car, instead of two or three. It may not completely solve the problem, but it least it would make a dent in it.

Also, I don't know how you propose for the "market" to finance billion dollar mass transit projects on its own. The market doesn't own our infrastructure, at least not technically. We the people do - so we the people would be paying for that. Via government contracts.
August 1, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

http://www.pickensplan.com/
I found this interesting from a former oil man, and corporate raider - in other words not your typical eviro-wacko:
August 1, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

Research and development into solar, wind, etc. is good. I would love to see more nuclear plants go on-line. It is not a matter of drawing a line in the sand against renewable energy. It is a matter of the extremist agenda that is fighting the use of fossil fuels and misinforming the public. Like it or not we need them to sustain are economy, our people, and our standard of living. It is the extremist agenda that proposes the cold turkey approach and fights exploration, drilling, and nuclear at every turn. A reasonable approach would establish markets for alternative energy and transpiration while sustaining what we currently have. Let technology, time, and markets make the changes.

If the environmentalists want to make a difference, perhaps all the money wasted on politics could be better used on buying and installing scrubbers on the unfiltered coal power plants in developing countries rather then making our lives miserable.

Additionally, I am extremely weary of the extremists who push policies that hurt our economy and our families and then use Bush as a scapegoat for all the hardship. Today's economic woes are a direct result of our energy policy over the past 18 years...make no mistake about it. We need a balanced approach not a one sided fear mongering global warming is going to kill us all approach. I hope the reasonable independent mindset sees through the extremist agenda. To force rapid change through hardship is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ....and unnecessary!
August 1, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Mass transit doesn't necessarily need to be defined as public infrastructure. There is definitely a need of some sort for "public domain," but if the entrepreneur is willing to pay rent for this and can still make ends meet, where is there a problem?

Also, the mining of the (lithium I believe) battery material lays waste to life for thousands of square acres around the epicenter. Not to mention, the price of refining the material into a useable product. By the time it makes it to the far east and back (where much of the creative process takes place), there is a huge chunk removed as far as what that battery is capable of saving in oil over its lifetime.
August 1, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Spencerr, I believe Russia has the largest coal reserves in the world. I could be wrong, but I think that's the case.

Also, what do you mean by "only" number two? What a stingy view of such a significant ranking! Are you trying to downplay that ranking so that you too can believe we're not "aggressive enough"? And that "liberal socialists" are the reason?

I just don't see how anyone could buy into the view that libs are holding us back from energy production when it's clear we are one of the top producers in the world.

The accusations are framed in the most absurd terms, and now you too are joining in with comments like we're "only" number two!
August 1, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Rosen has a Napolean little man complex.
August 1, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I never said liberal socialists are the reason. It might just be the environmentalist pawns of the socialists (the larger liberal group is made up of pacifist idealists, environmentalists, and socialists, the former two who I believe are pawns of the latter).

Anyway, we are one of the top producers in the world, but you conveniently ignore that we have not, in the last thirty years, done much to increase our production with respect to our population growth and fuel useage. No new oil refineries since the 1970s. No nuclear plants since the early eighties. A presidential ban on domestic oil exploration and new drilling since the first Bush's only term.

And for the most part, liberals have, using one method or another, made the cease in energy production relative to population growth and energy useage possible.
August 1, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Once again Chief Scientist Mike Rosen declares that global warming is a hoax, and it appears that his primary reason for doing so is that it conflicts with his political views. It's true that there are visionaries who are pushing for the transition to alternate energy faster than is practical or economical. This is always true of new technologies. It took many years before the airplane was a practical and economical mode of transportation, and some visionaries even claimed that everybody would be flying around in their own planes. Look at computers. In the 1950's, when a computer filled a large room, there were people predicting that everybody would have their own computer, but those people were ridiculed. Tracy's "two way wrist radio" was just fiction, and now we have I-Phones. The sooner we get busy developing alternative energy, the sooner it will become practical. Clearly that won't happen overnight. Stone Agers like Rosen should find a more appropriate profession, but all the gas stations are now self service.
August 1, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Bush II undercuts Bush I's executive order for no new domestic oil production and announces to the world that America is going to go get its oil, and oil falls twenty dollars a barrel (as speculators begin to flee). Liberals are the only opposition.

If McCain has a chance at beating Obama, I think it will because of the liberals steadfastness in refusing to actually do something to decrease the cost of American energy.
August 1, 2008

10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Irisman, Rosen knows that he is not the authority on "manmande global warming" (snicker). However, he does rely on equally-scientific data that chalks global warming up to cycles. You saying that he thinks he is the "Chief Scientist" is the equivalent of you saying that you are because you have chosen science with one political agenda over science with a different agenda.
August 1, 2008

10:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Speaking of the Bushes, you do know that Jeb Bush was staunchly opposed to offshore drilling in Florida, right?

Fast-forward a hundred years from today. The world is either going to be breathing a huge sigh of relief that there were some people who fought continued environmental degradation of this planet, or they are going to be cursing us for selling our planet out.
August 1, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Fast forward a hundred years, and there are numerous possible scenarios; the world will probably be laughing at present-day environmentalists (just as we are laughing at global cooling doomsayers from the forties and fifties) because the other half of the cycle kicked in and the world started cooling off again.

You assume that simply because you have academia and the highly-biased (liberal) media on your side that you are correct and scientific discussions have ended. Fact is, there are many PhDs on Rosen's side too, and even some of the original proliferators of (what I believe to be) the myth that is global warming are not detracting. The founder of the weather channel is one such export. There is a climate PhD who specializes in hurricanes at CSU in the same boat. And one of the originators of "manmade global warming" has decided that there is key missing evidence that disproves the manmade global warming theory.

One side may get ignored, but it doesn't make that side's argument less viable.
August 1, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

sorry, now detracting, and "expert" not export.
August 1, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "And for the most part, liberals have, using one method or another, made the cease in energy production relative to population growth and energy useage possible."

For the most part? What about declining oil production because the lowest-hanging fruit has already been picked? Oil is increasingly expensive to extract because they have to drill deeper for it and in places where it is extremely difficult to extract.

For example, ANWR. It will be very hard to extract oil from there, which will certainly be reflected in price per barrel. Same with offshore drilling, the most expensive method of oil production.

So prices per barrel will continue to climb, demand will continue to climb, and in the meantime, we're putting highly sensitive areas at grave risk. Florida absolutely depends on it's tourism industry - one big enough spill could wipe it out for decades. And while ANWR isn't a tourist spot, it's not the wasteland you people espouse it to be. It's teeming with wildlife, and one of the few remaining true wildernesses in this world. And there are Native Indians who live near there, too. All of that would be changed forever, because it's not just the drilling area that would be effected. There are roads that will have to be built, too. In fact, there will be a huge infrastructure needed in addition to the drilling area.
August 1, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

mytwosense,,

I never alleged that the US was not a major producer of conventional energy sources. I argued that the Democrats are placing severe restrictions on additional development of conventional energy sources. There is no denying my assertion as Democrats continue to obstruct development of huge new reserves in ANWR, the OCS, and the Rocky Mountains. If you want to argue well, you need to address my actual points.
August 1, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

.1 percent of ANWR, not counting road infrastructure.

And now you are ignoring supply and demand again when you talk about prices (a few days ago, you were ignoring it in healthcare). Technology is so awesome now that spills from actual drilling are nill and costs of drilling relative to thirty years ago are down. Yes, more tankers means higher odds of a spill. There are more cars on the road, so I should stop driving because there is a greater chance that I will get killed.

While costs of production do define a starting point on the supply curve for oil (or anything else), supply and demand drive world prices. Do you deny that Democrats have been hindering supply (to their credit, they are also, less successfully, hindering demand)?
August 1, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

mmannino, your points were characterized to frame the US as lagging behind the rest of the world in energy production, and that the Democrats were to blame for this state of affairs.

And by the way, almost every country has energy restrictions and enforced environmental laws, with maybe the exception of China and Saudi Arabia. Would you like us to take their lead and remove all restrictions?

Because to remove all restrictions is a recipe for disaster, including severe environmental effects and risking the tourism industry in Florida.

Finally, the "huge new reserves" in ANWR would produce maybe a year's worth of oil for the US - and that's based on best-case scenario estimates - assuming it would only be placed on the domestic market. Which it wouldn't.

Your argument boils down to this: Democrats are responsible for high gas prices. And that's a silly argument meant to politicize a very serious issue facing this country which also further divides this country's citizens.
August 1, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

The myth of global warming debunked by science. These articles, while politically motivated, are based in fact and are as legitimate as the equally-politically motivated quasi-scientific garbage the media and academia have been feeding you since you had pig tails and put stickers on your trapper keeper.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginat...
August 1, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, first off, if you die in a car accident, that doesn't effect hundreds of thousands of other people, nor will it create an environmental catastrophe that wrecks hundreds of square miles surrounding your accident.

Also, your claim that spills are practically nil is just a flat-out untruth. Go to Google News and type in "oil spill." First story I got was about a spill that happened just last Wednesday.

And oil production costs are not "relatively down" from thirty years ago. Please, where are you getting this stuff???? The low-hanging fruit is gone, it's incredibly more expensive to drill now, and if it wasn't, that would be reflected in lower oil prices.
August 1, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

My two sense: Your "ANWR would only produce one-year's worth of oil" argument is nonsense. You assume that the ONLY source of oil for a year would be ANWR and that we could pull it out that fast. How silly stupid. In reality, that oil would be added to the world supply over the span of 20-40 years so that countries would be buying oil from us and thereby driving down worldwide costs of oil.

BTW - what environmental disasters are you forseeing. When Katrina went through the gulf, not a drop of oil was dropped into the Gulf of Mexico by our dozens of oil rigs there... What tourism pains? The wells would be at least 50 miles from the coast - more like 150 miles - and the visual horizon is only 13 miles at ground/sea level. Who would see the wells?
August 1, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, why should I believe your sources on global warming are credible, when you are also spouting false information about oil spills not happening anymore and that oil production is cheaper than ever?

If you're getting your information from similar sources, at this point, I'm honestly suspect of any claim you make!
August 1, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Oil is not more expensive to drill, if the land-use restrictions are lifted. The only barrier is law.
August 1, 2008

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Ted, I have no doubt that following environmental procedures increases some of the cost of drilling, but the cost of not following those procedures is even higher when severe damage occurs because of negligence.

But it's still more expensive to drill in areas where it is more complex to extract oil. Are you really going to insist it's not?
August 1, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Forget it. You are probably right, though in my defense you provided no references for your statement that oil drilling is more expensive. I will admit that processing tar, obviously a higher hanging fruit, is more expensive. ANWR, BTW, is low hanging fruit.

It is not important to my point or yours for that matter because price of world oil is determined by the world oil market, which is driven by supply and demand (again, cost is a starting point on the supply curve, not the equilibriam point of supply and demand). For instance, ten years ago, it was uneconomical to produce from oil tars in Canada because the world price of oil was lower than the cost to produce it. As the world price of oil increases, now it is viable to produce from tar. Cost doesn't drive the price, but price does have an effect on what is economically viable.
August 1, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Ted, my argument is not nonsense, because you people characterize ANWR as a source of oil that would considerably decrease prices. That's why your slogan is "Drill here, drill now, pay less!" It's a scam meant to fool people into thinking that ANWR will dramatically lower prices at the gas pump very soon.

Taken on it's own, ANWR would provide a year's worth of oil for the US. But as you just fully admitted, it wouldn't be put on the domestic markets. Rather, it would slowly be absorbed over several decades into a world market characterized by huge and ever-increasing demand. The price easing would be non-existent, especially considering the costs of developing the land for drilling.

Cheap oil is basically over, but you people want to continue to defraud the public into thinking it will be our cheap source of energy for decades, even hundreds of years to come.

It's a lie, .and a dangerous one that is going to end this country up ill-prepared, lose our position as the most economically powerful country in the world, and also royally screw over the next generations.
August 1, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

The safety thing I heard on Rush's show several weeks or months ago, and I messed up by quoting it without googling it first.
August 1, 2008

11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And yet, MTW, with just a hint in the air from president Bush that we are going to start producing more, oil falls.

Here are a couple of arguments for you MTW, and they are the ones the defeatist Left keeps using with regard to drilling;

"We should not do anything to increase oil production because it will take ten years at the earliest for the production to affect prices."

Using that logic for the last thirty years, we are where we are now with regard to oil prices because of the libs.

"The oil we produce goes into the world market, so it's of no use to drill."

Okay, using that logic, there is no reason to increase our domestically-produced oil supply despite increasing world demand. Put another way, world demand and world supply dictate the world market and thus price for oil. But somehow, increasing world supply won't do a lick of good.
August 1, 2008

11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

mytwosense,

You are mischaracterizing my remarks. While it is true that other countries have restrictions on energy development, no other country has restrictions like ours. Our restrictions are outright bans. Democrats have forbidden energy development in locations with huge reserves. No other country has forbidden energy development in locations with huge reserves. Energy development can be done in these locations with minimal environmental impacts.

My argument is that the Democrats are purposely pursuing an elitist and immoral energy policy to withhold large amounts of conventional energy from world energy markets. The actions of the Democrats make OPEC look like a non player. OPEC tries to control supply by placing quotas on member country output. Over time, many countries have cheated on these quotas. The Democrats are simply refusing to allow large amounts from entering world markets and lowering prices.
August 1, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTW,

I quoted a bad source without further research. It was a mistake.

However, unlike you, I don't ignore supply and demand and basic economics in everything I argue. You have some points, one of which I just conceded to you. I concede my weaknesses. However, you do not concede yours.

You won't look at the sources I posted for you because I made a mistake.

Using your logic, I should just shut my ears and call you an idiot because you continue to erroneously ignore economics.
August 1, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, my point is that the "Drill here! Drill now! Pay less!" crowd is attempting to fool people into thinking any new drilling will have dramatic and immediate effects.

Also, how do you know that Bush's announcement is what caused oil prices to drop? And by the way, prices at the gas pump didn't drop that much, unless you're excited over a six or seven cents reduction.

Here's an article that gives some reasons, a whole bunch of them. Whether they're true or not, I have no idea. Hell, let's face it, none of us can decide if prices are truly dictated by real supply and demand, or psychological factors driven by a speculator-based market. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...
August 1, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we'll go over it one more time, spencer jr.

please explain to us how supply and demand can explain this trend:

1992

$19/barrel

$1.05/gallon

2000

$23/barrel

$1.42/gallon

2008

$140+/barrel

$4+/gallon
August 1, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Ah, MTW, the reason that oil dropped twenty dollars a barrel is because speculators are perceiving the end of their roller coaster ascension and decided to drop their speculations.

It coincided directly with two events...above-mentioned Bush stuff, and Americans driving less. The demand side. You see, speculation is not independant of supply and demand, as it just reacted to both (or maybe just one or the other, point still stands).

Gas always follows oil quickly up but slowly back down. And we may not be out of the woods. And my gas bill this morning was about a buck less than usual. 52 bucks ain't nothin'.
August 1, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Actually, I did look at the link you provided - it appeared to be a rather amateurishly designed opinion site, with several fiery opinion pieces from a few scientists and others who consistently appear in the opposing side of the global warming debate. They are a very small minority group, not that this disqualifies their position, but the fact remains that far more scientists and reputable scientific agencies don't agree with them.

Also, spencerr, I've never really dived into the GW debate. I'm not a scientist, and some of the arguments are way too technical for me to absorb, much less attempt to expound upon with authority.

If I had to pick a side, I guess I don't see how so many tons of CO2 going up into the atmosphere every single day aren't trapping heat and reflecting it back to earth, causing some human-made warming.

And even if I didn't believe that, I certainly believe in pollution and that it can mess up our waters and the air we breathe. Fossil fuels do produce toxic carcinogens, and developing them does cause environmental damage. You're likely right that lithium mining for electric batteries does, too.
August 1, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I don't think we should be focused on drill here, drill now, pay less now.

We should be focused on drill here, drill now, and in thirty years this problem won't be compounded by thirty years of inactivity.
August 1, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, you just flunked economics 101 and any other subject based in logic.

You gave me prices and years but nothing relating those prices to world supply and world demand.
August 1, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

unless you can show that demand increased by 500%...you're the one with the economic willful ignorance problem, spencer jr.
August 1, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "It coincided directly with two events...above-mentioned Bush stuff, and Americans driving less."

I thought the latter had a great deal to do with it, and I guess speculators did too, but then it turns out inventory supplies were actually shorter than expected. So the price hasn't continued to fall.

Don't you find it slightly disconcerting that the people in charge of pricing our energy, speculators, are basically bookies & fortune-tellers?

Yet another reason to work hard to move away from oil. It's a screwy system to use to run our energy-based economy, and I seriously doubt we're ever going to remove speculation from the equation.
August 1, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Oil is still down twenty dollars and continues to fluctuate between 120 and 125 (way below 145).

And my point is not that I don't want to get away from oil. My point is that I don't want to get away from oil via government intervention (subsidies as well as blocking drilling). You were right in your very first post when you said market is advancing.... It doesn't need help from government. With gas four dollars a gallon (as well as current government intervention), there are people moving madly to develop renewables. We don't need government forcing their preferences on us. We are getting there, and at a pretty good rate, from you own first post. Your way is the expensive way. Somehow green energy, which is vastly more expensive, is the answer to our energy woes. It will replace oil one day, but the technology is not there as far as being more economically viable.
August 1, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, show me a "demand timeline" that demonstrates that demand has not risen by 500%, and I will concede that price is not primarily a function of supply and demand.
August 1, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, government tax incentives encourage people to invest in solar systems. The more people who do so, the more the market will expand.

Without government spending on infrastructure, autos and thus oil would NEVER have taken off. That kind of investment simply could not be paid for out of the private sector, or it would have been.

In addition to it's viability, the green energy sector presents a whole new addition to our economy. One critical reason why we need this is because, even if we drill in the places you want to, gas prices are only going to go up. Seriously, by 2010, we could be looking at five bucks a gallon or more, by 2015, maybe six, seven, even more.

If people can't pay for that, the economy is going to tank. We need a serious shot in the arm to fund the rising price of gas, and while some jobs would be created by new drilling, it would mainly be for jobs requiring oil drilling experts. Your average American citizen has never worked on an offshore drilling platform.

The market alone will take much, much longer to get affordable renewable energy technologies available to the public at large. We simply don't have that kind of time to waste.
August 1, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...spencer jr...not even rush could make the claim that global demand has increased by 500% since 2000.

nice try though.

can we quit with the supply and demand boogeyman stories?

supply and demand can't account for the skyrocketing fuel costs...and doesn't represent the fix you apparently believe it does either.

we need comprehensive energy reform that not only addresses domestic supply issues, but also the republican policies that have devalued the dollar and destabilized the middle east, as well as the unchecked speculation that is contributing to the problem.
August 1, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTW, I have already conceded that public goods (road infrastructure and military) necessitate public investment. That part of your argument doesn't hold because renewable energy is not a public good. I might listen a little more closely, if, say, we needed to build transformers and power lines to facilitate energy transportation, but to that end, energy is the car, and we didn't invest directly in cars.

Put another way, in your argument, energy and cars are the same. Government did not need to invest in cars to see them succeed. It needed to invest in the public good called road infrastructure. The public good relating to energy that would be a metaphor would be transformers and power lines.
August 1, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, just admit it if you can't find a timeline for worldwide demand for oil. I'll understand.
August 1, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
Crude closed at $128.10 yesterday, not $140+

Get your facts straight before you post here.
August 1, 2008

12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hint jay, you can't find it because it does not exist. It would take a lot more calculation (using calculus and statistics) than I currently have at my disposal without doing a major research project.
August 1, 2008

12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, perhaps I didn't word my last post very clearly. I'm just assuming you can understand that if we at least reduce our oil dependency by, say, 20 or 30% because our homes are powered through solar, the savings alone there will help us absorb increasingly expensive costs to drive our cars.

You also completely miss the point that although the government didn't directly invest in cars, it invested in the infrastructure necessary for cars to be adopted on a mass level, and thus, for petroleum to really take off.
August 1, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "Jay,
Crude closed at $128.10 yesterday, not $140+. Get your facts straight before you post here."

Jay never said otherwise, so it's a bit premature for you to be giving him directives on how to post on this forum.

I think what Jay is getting at, although I could be wrong, is that it's not just a simple matter of supply and demand. Other factors have to be coming into play here, because gas has been at or near $4 a gallon, even when oil is at both $140 a barrel and $125 a barrel.

Although the price of gas is directly related to the price of oil, there are other effect factors, and they obviously fluctuate, too. Otherwise, we'd see a predictable percentage change in gas every time the price of oil itself changes.
August 1, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTW, in the sense you are talking about, the infrastructure needed for renewables to take off already exists. Its main problem is that it is in direct competition with something that is much cheaper (carbon). However, there will come a point when renewables can compete, and we eagerly await the day the markets make that happen.

And believe me, we want to see oil go away, but not artificially, at the hands of the government. The day that the Saudi Princes stop playing Scroog McDuck in a money bin that once belonged to America, I will be jumping up and down in the streets in extreme joy.

...it will happen one day, but it is a waste of taxpayer money to do it artificially.
August 1, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, I'm referring to government involvement with assisting our energy markets. That doesn't necessarily have to mean "infrastructure," I just use that particular example to show how government involvement assisted the oil and auto markets.

This is different. Government involvement here would be tax incentives to get solar in more homes. And yes, some infrastructure in terms of mass transit.

But you're stuck on that word "infrastructure," when the topic at hand is government assistance in speeding up the markets.
August 1, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, then I guess in your book oil and automobiles got an "artificial" start.

You're clinging to some kind of purist vision here, for what sake I don't know, but it's a kind of thinking that seriously hinders progress in the renewable energy sector. Believe me, the market players WANT government financing and attractive tax incentives for their customers.
August 1, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

It's just money that could stay in taxpayers pockets (and investment) while the markets eventually found their own way toward renewable energy.

Anyway, no reply necessary. It is one of those irreconcilable points between someone who believes in government hands off and someone else who believes in government helping things along.
August 1, 2008

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Why not PRIVATE financing based on the profit-incentive, which would lead to the most efficient allocation of our economic resources. The market does a better job of managing risk than government. Financiers won't dump money into something if there is a better way of allocating that money (given that someone isn't pulling the wool over their eyes). All it takes for government investment in something is the right kind of politics and the right kind of friends (have you seen The Aviator...Juan Trip and the crooked Senator), and even if it is the right thing to do, how does government know how much to invest for the best, most efficient outcome...it doesn't.

That's why I am a purist market lover.
August 1, 2008

12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr, there is private financing, in fact, there are a slew of angel investors currently involved in renewable energy. But that is solely focused on the supply side. The government is assisting mostly on the demand side, i.e., helping to expand the demand market. I'm not saying for every product out there this kind of arrangement is necessary, but it's been proven to work for launching the auto and petroleum industries.
August 1, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "how does government know how much to invest for the best, most efficient outcome"

Government isn't working in a vacuum. They often work closely with industry leaders and professionals, and in those cases, economic and technical experts on both sides work together.
August 1, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

When I can gain economically from putting solar on my roof or constructing a wind turbine in my backyard, I promise you, I will be the first in line.

Anyway, whether you subsidize the production or the consumption, it makes no difference. Subsidize the production, and the product is cheaper for the consumer. Subsidize consumption, and the product is cheaper for the consumer.

BTW, you know those HDTV antenna-converter commercials. Well, I got two coupons and bought the converter boxes. Twenty bucks for a one hundred dollar value. I bought them because I am taking from the system out of spite, not because I had any real need for them (though I have one of them ready to set up when the switch is made).
August 1, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Responding to your last post...how did that work for the Soviet Union?
August 1, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "Subsidize the production, and the product is cheaper for the consumer. Subsidize consumption, and the product is cheaper for the consumer."

I assume you agree this is a good thing, right?

spencerr: "Responding to your last post...how did that work for the Soviet Union?"

Don't really follow what you're saying here. Also, I have to go for the day. Taking my son to the library where he loves to crawl around in the kids section and get oohed and ahhed over by the librarians!
August 1, 2008

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Government control over the means for production. That is what I meant. Government can't do it more efficiently.

And no, I don't agree. I'm a purist market man. Why doesn't the government just take all of the money out of the economy and make all products free for the consumers?

Anyway, have fun with your son! Babies are...girl magnets. They are cute!
August 1, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

stuckiniowa writes:

jay -- you are correct, demand for oil has not gone up 500%. It has however gone from 67,000,000 barrels per day to over 85,000,000 barrels per day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t46.xls)

so there has been approximately a 25% increase in demand.

You have to consider that the cost of transporting the oil - goes up - as the price of fuel goes up, which goes up as the price of oil goes up. And the cycle continues.

Does it explain the entire increase in the cost of gas at the pump -- no. Does it explain a good chunk of it --- absolutely.
August 1, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"Jay never said otherwise, so it's a bit premature for you to be giving him directives on how to post on this forum."

MTS, you have to know how to talk to jay in terms he understands. Condescending remarks like that are how he "debates", so I was just speaking his language. I wouldn't say something like that to any other poster on this website.

"I think what Jay is getting at, although I could be wrong, is that it's not just a simple matter of supply and demand."

Regardless, the fact remains that his numbers are wrong. He knows they're wrong, as he has been corrected on those numbers recently that he keeps posting. He does it anyway because he has no credibility.
August 1, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"so there has been approximately a 25% increase in demand."

bingo.

enough said.

eli...i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread...but pouting about it isn't going to change the facts.

in 2008 oil went to 140+ a barrel and 4+ a gallon. there's no conspiracy at work...i just post that little beauty a lot and don't want to look up the "today" prices every time i do. would it make you feel better if i just post ~$125-145/barrel under the 2008 number?

there's nothing wrong with the data my little footsoldier....no one is lying....no one is "cheating". you just need to come to terms with the fact that you're either going to have to elevate your game or stop nipping at my heels like a little dog everytime i post something that is politically inconvenient for you.
August 1, 2008

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

spencer jr, i just don't see the need to wait until the invisible hand of the market pushes the industry towards alternative energy...particularly when you consider the additional costs in blood and treasure that accompany our dependence on foreign oil.

it just doesn't make fiscal sense.

as far as gov't funded r&d...why in the world would you want to dismantle the infrastructure (your word) that has successfully produced huge advances for the betterment of mankind for over 200 years?

that just doesn't make a lot of common sense either.
August 1, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Sorry, been hard at work and being productive and such.

twobitsense, world demand is going to go up anyway, why not provide additional supply to meet that demand?

What, do you think wind is going to accomplish that? When it needs a fossil-fuel plant running at 90% capacity to back it up?

Or is it solar? The two largest solar power plants in North America, which I now live close to, produce less power than that single-stack coal plant that I grew up next to in Hayden, CO. If we used every available spot in the US and turned it into Solar Power plants, we'd have less than 50% of the power we need today and it would cost $$$ trillions.

What then, nuclear? Where to put the waste? Yucca Mountain? or reprocess it! (This, BTW, is our best option.)

You fools on the left want to close your eyes and go nanananananananana and think that you have a solution; but, twobitsofsense hit the nail on the head. Demand is rising and will rise more and faster in the coming years.

The ONLY way we can meet that demand is to increase supplies. We can increase energy supplies through wind and solar, but those are extremely expensive and of little usefulness. Nuclear and drilling, immediately, are our best hopes for our future.

Now, about negligence. Which countries are most negligent? Where are most of the spills? Betcha it isn't the US!
August 1, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Ted_in_Vegas: "You fools on the left want to close your eyes and go nanananananananana and think that you have a solution."

We have many proposed solutions. Renewable energies, mass transit, telecommuting, four-day workweeks, other means of conservation...a whole host of working ideas already in practice by businesses and homeowners and municipalities around the world, that disprove your lies about their "usefulness."

It's the Pollute-and-Plunder crowd you hail from that keeps hitting the same stale notes over and over.
August 1, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Now, about negligence. Which countries are most negligent? Where are most of the spills? Betcha it isn't the US!"

well....i'll take that bet. shall we say $10,000 in gold coins deliverable to the front desk at Morton's on the last day of next month?

to give you an idea...the US accounted for 55 incidents between 1995 and 2004...nearly four times as many as the country that was second on the list....sk with 15.

http://www.itopf.com/_assets/document...
August 1, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread"
Jay, haven't you learned by now that simply declaring victory doesn't make it so?
Remember how assertions like this were explained to you before? I put it in very simple terms so you could wrap your small mind around it. Let's try again:
If I tell myself I can fly and then go jump off a building, I will go SPLAT when I hit the ground. This will happen no matter how many times I tell myself I can fly. I can do it over and over again for weeks, months, years even...and it still won't make it so.
The same thing applies when you resort to simply repeating assertions like this over and over. No matter how many times you do it, they won't come true. But you can keep on clicking those heels together if you want to, I guess.

"in 2008 oil went to 140+ a barrel and 4+ a gallon."

Yep, it sure did. That was the high point. So, if you chose the highest point in 1992 and 2000 too, your little list might be a little more relevant.
If you'd like to salvage some credibility, you could try posting something like this when talking about oil prices:

Average prices of crude according to inflationdata.com:
1992- $19.25/barrel
2000- $27.69/barrel
2008 (partial) - $97.98
Check out the info for yourself here:
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflatio...

Now that is a valid comparison. Instead, what you did was take an average for 1992, and a number from 2000 (not sure where you got your number there- since it differs from inflationdata.com I don't know if it's an average), and then you took the peak price in 2008.
Now THAT is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest. You're a hack, jay.

To be even more accurate, we should adjust those numbers for inflation. 1992 and 2000 average prices are listed in 1992 and 2000 dollars.
If we were to adjust for inflation, that $19.25 in 1992 turns into $29.47 in 2007 dollars. The $27.39 becomes $34.16 in 2007 dollars.

You're right, jay. There's nothing wrong with the data. There's something wrong with you and your lack of ability to post accurate data.
August 1, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you betcha...as i said...i'll just put the range of prices for 1992 2000 and 2008 from now on, eli...that way you won't have to pout about the numbers instead of trying to actually refute the point.

can we move on or do you want to whine about the fact that you can't refute my point on healthcare either?
August 1, 2008

4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rosen once again couldn't get through the week without lying....

"Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen falsely claimed that "an investigation vindicated" former Colorado Secretary of State's office employee Dan Kopelman of allegations related to his having been doing "on the side" some "work for Republicans or something like that." In fact, the state auditor's report found that Kopelman's conduct "does appear to have violated state statute" in that he "owned and operated a partisan political business" while employed in the department's elections division."

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
August 1, 2008

4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

See...these people lie on a regular basis. Why would anyone believe what they have to say about our energy policies?
August 1, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

spencerr and eli have said all I would have, thanks.
August 1, 2008

8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

spenccer I never said you were Jethro,I foolishly applied Pavlovian logic to the presumptive cyphering methodology that you might better get a handle on, my bad.

As with any sound venture over simplification is a recipe for disaster however for the moment lets view JUST the 33%/mo electric savings from the micro generation windmill

(which to answer that other question relating to homeowners association or neighbors sniveling, the biggest device I saw amounts to a 5 gallon bucket on it`s side mounted on an 8-12 ft high stake or a wall bracket no more obtrusive than a .dbs dish also they had an attic fan prototype which will serve dual function to be marketed in 2009)

Further simplifying matters let`s round the DOE Energy Star Table cited on energy saver water heaters $0.085/ kWh cost UP to $0.09,(invoking $0.005/kWh for any hidden "ghosts")

Frankly I personally find it hard to fathom the DOE considers a 4 person household burning through 1000kWh/mo in electricity average use none-the-less it is there...OK clod crunchers off?
Let`s fire up the abacus shall we? GOOD! & Away we go...

xe.com today 900 GBP =$1778.13 US
(thanks dumbya & co) anyhow we plunk down $1800 for the mill...
We have $0.09kWh x1000kWh = $90/mo

As indicated these units cut household consumption by 33% which is fed back into the grid for a cash saving of $30/mo $360/yr

So 5 years it`s paid for,one might think logically the short run would be 2&1/2 years by including monthly credits from grid feedback BUT the utility has lobbied and been granted the exclusive right to only buy consumer generated electricity at wholesale

As for maintenance on these units they are just like the alternator in your car, periodically inspect wiring for cracks & bushings for drag/wear and the device will outlast your grandkids...

If you research Colorado under the Government link on that power saver site you will see tax incentives, (expiring in 2008) that actually exceed that particular micro- generation units cost by over $200 thus they in essence would pay you to install it.
August 1, 2008

9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

windskull writes:

stuckiniowa writes:

Windskull -- are you talking about an open or closed loop geothermal heat pump? If open loop -- do you see that as being a waste of water -- our next precious resource?

Are you planning on using your heatpump for your hot water also - or just for heating? Is 2.5 ton big enough, or do you need secondary sources for your heating? Who is going to install this heat pump that you bought wholesale? how much is it going to cost -- from my understanding somewhere in the range of $10,000.

Just asking.

Good & valid points, stuckiniowa OK first I am not an out of the box parts missing so panic & send it back individual although disability has put the kibash on me first handing projects...

With only slight modification your home sprinkler system can become the loop by simply weighting down the pop up heads and using flexible auto exhaust pipe & radiator hoses to tie into the pumps manifold greatly reducing if not fully eliminating fire danger...(also a 2.5 ton 13SEER unit is designed for a 3000sq ft residence)

If you don`t have a sprinkler system a small trencher that drives like a riding mower can be rented fairly inexpensively for a day just make sure the gas,phone & electric utility & cable co maps all buried lines on your property before you start trenching

If indeed your climate requires a buried loop, many can be ran along the wall or roof but basically you can with a bit of sweat cut your end cost by up to 70%
August 1, 2008

10:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

fatheromalley writes:

Wow.. do tell and how much investment? I thought there were subsidies for "new wave" energy?

I don't get it... 60% of residential installation is covered by everyone here to the benefit of the home owner.. socialist program.. then our government then taxes every product sold, taxes the investment in equipment, and if any value is added to property (inflation) they are taxed as a capital gains tax.

Subsidies do not build new business necessarilly. Let's look at the market of said solar panel after it's price to us has been raised with government taxation rolled into our price for them to stay alive.. (you must have less overhead costs than revenue...get it?)

The only way to make enough money to pay employees, pay your business taxes, pay 50% of every employees FICA (so they don't see what it really is) and that is to raise the price to the customer..
Does anyone understand this here?
Does anyone grasp what taxing production and not consumption does to us all?

Screw your good guys and bad guys crap.. that's assuming a government truly for the people and by the people.. we currently have a government BUY the people... .special interest groups have the politicians ear.. and these groups keep and eye on THEIR representatives while we spend time bickering..

www.fairtax.org
www.votesmart.org
www.jihadwatch.org
www.numbersusa.org
www.fatheromalley.com Do this one first, you'll find click throughs to all of these on the home page.. take your time, plenty of videos... write your congressman, write your senators. Write your state and local reps.. do as much as the "special interests" and our course will change. Now let's find mutual answers not endless questions... how about Hydrogen... Mike didn't do the research.. he took the easy way..

We have 100 year old technology waiting in the wings to use water for our power and we make it by ALL THE ABOVE, windmill farms, solar farms, current electrical grid generators, dams.. + the internal combustion engine and it's fluids are recycled today... disposal is not a "what-if".. we've been doing this progressively cleaner for 20 years. That technology already has a replace/repair infrastructure that other vehicle power systems lack. Speed is directly proportional to complexity in any project..
Mike it's time you kept it simple.. there is no engine out here that won't run on Hydrogen.. Trucks and Jet Airplanes included..

Simple devices and answers aren't necessarilly simplistic, but those that feel safe in the "old days" want it to stay the same.
Electrolysis can be very efficient and there are a myriad of different ways to harvest hydrogen. ANY Hydrocarbon has HYDROGEN..
Sure drill like hell... but if you want subsidies all you "progressives" put it towards the production of Hydrogen from a myriad of sources..
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 3, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetaReal writes:

where the hell is froward69? I sure miss his small minded drivel. On thing is always a sure bet in politics, you know your on the right track when the noise level is the loudest.

Oh windskull, If your $1500 technology is true why can't I buy it? HUH? Why not?

I suppose Bush and Cheney are stoping the sale of it. OOPS, Don't the Dims have control of congress?

Maybe Barack Insane Obama will put it on the market. I will hold my breath.
August 4, 2008

5:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"that way you won't have to pout about the numbers instead of trying to actually refute the point."

I'm sorry jay, I didn't realize that pointing out your intellectual dishonesty amounts to "pouting". Since that's the case, from now on I'll be sure to offer the following rebuttal when you post your usual garbage on oil prices:

1992- $34/barrel
2008- $57.87/barrel

That's the high point in 1992 adjusted for 2007 dollars and the low point in 2008 adjusted to 1992 dollars. They're both accurate numbers, so when you call me on the deception I've used here I'll just go ahead and tell you to stop "pouting". After all, that's all it is when you post misleading information and someone calls you on it, right? So of course anybody to challenge me on what I just posted must be "pouting about the numbers" and not refuting the point.
August 4, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

OK, Jay, let us expose your inability to handle the data that you're so good at retrieving; are you a brown labrador or a yellow lab?

From your link:

Over 10 years there were 55 incidents of tanker spillage in the US, which accounted for 24% of all incidents.
and -
That amount was less than half of the incidents from the 10 years prior.
and -
Although the US had the most spills, because our spills were smaller, both the UK and Spain surpassed us in the amount of oil spilt.

Now, let us consider that we are, by far, the largest IMPORTER of oil in the world and we see why we would likely have more tanker spills than anyone else - MORE TANKERS!

All of this proves my point. If we have more DOMESTIC production of oil, we need fewer tankers. If we have fewer tankers, we have fewer spills.

Most of the spills were elsewhere and, by far, most of the spilt oil was elsewhere. Taking the number of spills against the amount shipped OR the amount of oil spilt against the amount of oil shipped, I'm sure you'll see that the US is safer in oil transportation than most of the rest of the world.

HOWEVER, the point remains that in 1970 we produced most of our own oil and now we import most of oil despite having some of the largest reserves available. Drill here, drill now = pay less. It's basic economics.
August 4, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" the US had the most spills"

enough said, ted.

any questions?

let me know when the gold will be ready.

eli, you've once again failed to prove that i've been dishonest about anything...all while failing to refute any of my positions...which is why you're still the reigning Pouting Troll.

elevate your game and you won't have to whine about not being able to keep up instead of actually keeping up.
August 4, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Ted In Vegas,

Those on the Left, such as the last person you argued with on here, feign concern about energy prices. They are fine with the fact that fossil fuel prices are soaring because they have an agenda and high cost of gas and oil fits their agenda. If supply is restricted, the price will continue to climb, and then they can have their cake, disgustingly expensive and unreliable green energy.

Then, when energy prices as a whole (including renewables) have put the hurt on the average American, they can pander to the masses by promising more programs. Then they can eat their cake too.

It is insidious and disgusting that they are giving us the old one two by handicapping us so that they can push their social/economics agenda.

They act ignorant about supply and demand and BTU efficiency (relatively horrible efficiency of renewables), but they understand it completely and are using it to accomplish their agenda.
August 4, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Not that renewables are bad...they are just not the answer yet!

Libs would handicap us and hold us hostage with oil prices to accomplish what they want, while, on the other hand, we could let markets control the process, and we can all have prosperity and eventually still enjoy the cleaner environment of renewables.
August 4, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we see spencer jr setting up the strawman:

"Those on the Left, such as the last person you argued with on here, feign concern about energy prices. They are fine with the fact that fossil fuel prices are soaring because they have an agenda and high cost of gas and oil fits their agenda"

and then knocking it down:

"It is insidious and disgusting that they are giving us the old one two by handicapping us so that they can push their social/economics agenda."

and knocking it down.

textbook, junior...thanks for yet another example of what happens when someone can't keep up.
August 4, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

What part of it is a strawman argument, jay?

The part where Dems have been hampering oil production for the last thirty years and are now capitalizing on the oil shortage, or the part where they will introduce more programs for the poor when they can't afford to drive down the driveway to get their mail?
August 4, 2008

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Okay, the very last thing I wrote in my last post is a little exaggerated, but you can't deny that the high gas prices are going to eventually lead to populist rhetoric from the Left.

And you can't deny that Dems have blocked nuke plants and oil refineries and have been generally fighting the increase in fossil fuels over the last thirty year...restricting supply.

And you can't deny that oil prices are very expensive now, even adjusted for inflation, than they were thirty years ago.

So...where's the strawman jay?
August 4, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Higher costs of fossil fuels is good for the enviros' agenda because they want to go green.

Higher costs of fuel, period, are good for the economic liberals because it gives them more reason to redistribute wealth and grow their programs.

Higher costs of fossil fuels are a function of supply and demand, and while they are a little successful in hampering demand, they have been way successful in hampering supply.

So, somebody's long-term agenda has been helped immensely by rising prices in oil.

What the Left didn't foresee is Americans' ability to occasionally think, and now that they have pinned the problem of high fuel costs on the Left, McCain actually has a (albeit slim) chance of winning the presidential election.
August 4, 2008

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"eli, you've once again failed to prove that i've been dishonest about anything"

Dude, are you kidding? You presented a comparison of average prices for 1992 and 2000, not adjusted for inflation, and compared them to the highest point of 2008. That's about as dishonest and misleading as one can get. What a pathetic hack!
August 4, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You're only crying, jay, because you can see that the chain of events unmistakably points at a liberal policy-contrived problem with an unmistakably liberal answer that will cause yet another liberal policy-contrived problem, which will lead to another liberal answer.

You're just mad because whoever told you to be a Democrat has just been revealed as a very adept social engineer who believes the means justify the end. You're reeling because you see the fault in your mindless defense of liberal policy, and you can see some truth to the arguments of your opponents.

Who's your daddy?

You'd better just come to grips with it. As Darth Vader once said, "I am your father..."
August 4, 2008

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Who's your daddy, jay? Let's hear it. Admit it. Who's your daddy?
August 4, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

and as i said, eli, there was no dishonestly in the facts i produced by saying that in 2008 the prices have varied from ~$125-145 instead of just having to look up today's value every time i paste that little beauty...in fact i'm going to post the ranges for 1992 and 2000 in the future because its effect is good for my point and it will force you to actually try to refute my point instead of just whining. brilliant idea.

spencer jr, don't pout because i pointed out your use of a strawman argument after not being able to refute my point again.

and remember...tinfoil hat conspiracy theories aren't going to help your case either...

"you can see that the chain of events unmistakably points at a liberal policy-contrived problem with an unmistakably liberal answer that will cause yet another liberal policy-contrived problem, which will lead to another liberal answer"

my favorite:

"You're just mad because whoever told you to be a Democrat has just been revealed as a very adept social engineer who believes the means justify the end. You're reeling because you see the fault in your mindless defense of liberal policy, and you can see some truth to the arguments of your opponents."

wow
August 4, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Alright jay, I'm waiting for it. Tell me, who's your daddy?

I'm sitting on your chest doing the typewriter on you, and you are squirming and writhing in pain.

You have no defense for my attacks.

Who's your daddy?
August 4, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Are you still in stage 1, jay? Cat got your tongue?
August 4, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, remember when I told you that in order to spare yourself the appearance of dumbarssness, you should let MTW argue for you.

Well, maybe you should call on her for help.

Oh, yeah, you can't. Because when I accused her and her kind of this agenda, she didn't deny it.
August 4, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

See jay run!
August 4, 2008

12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"there was no dishonestly in the facts i produced by saying that in 2008 the prices have varied from ~$125-145"

Fair enough. Where it becomes dishonest is when you take an average price for 1992 and compare it with the maximum in 2008, and a failure to account for inflation makes it even worse. You have a habit of presenting numbers in a slanted manner, jay, and calling you on it does not amount to "pouting".
If you're going to cite the entire price range for 1992 by comparison to 2008, fine, but account for inflation when you do it. You'll still show a significant increase, and you won't look like a hack when doing it.
Or you could present the average numbers for 1992, 2000 and 2008 as opposed to averages for 1992 and 2000 and the highest point for 2008, and adjust for inflation in your averages for earlier years. There's another way you can demonstrate a significan difference in price without looking like a hack.
But don't repeatedly post misleading information and expect to not get called out on it, and then pout when people point out the flaws in your post. That just makes you look like an idiot, and you don't want that given how much you like to reassure yourself of how smart you are.
August 4, 2008

12:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Eli, the sky is green. I said so, so it is. Don't pout!

I don't even know why I am a Democrat! I just spout the rhetoric as much as possible without backing it up, and when I get caught in a discrepency, I change my story.

Then I site sources that I didn't even read. Sometimes, they make me look like a complete idiot because they are unrelated to the topic at hand or they prove your point, but sometimes (actually, that is what usually happens), but sometimes, I do a half-assed job of putting a liberal slant on the data or at the very best, siting a source that already has a liberal slant on it given by the liberal author (I would say socialist or enviornmental, but those words smack of conspiracy theory).

When all else fails, I will call you names and declare victory.

Don't pout, just because I am right and you are wrong...remember, the sky is brown...I mean green...wait...the sky is actually pink with turqoise undertones.

I said that in my last post. Why don't you read my sources? They are always correct. Stop pouting!
August 4, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

That coming from one of Rush's footsoldiers!
August 4, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

You forgot about Rush Limbaugh, spencerr.
August 4, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay,

Why don't you, HTT, and MTS just move to France where everything is as you wish it would be in America?
August 4, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Oops...guess we didn't forget Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, that last post was pretty low, Spencerr. MTS and jay aren't even close to comparable. We may disagree with MTS, but she presents logical arguments, can normally back them with documentation where necessary, makes concessions where appropriate, and pretty much has a logical, good debate about current events.
Jay's a simple minded troll and nothing more who for some reason thinks he has something intelligent to say, despite proving on a daily basis that he does not. MTS does not deserve to be insulted by being put in the same category as jay. Nor does HTT for that matter.
August 4, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

...actually, that last post may have been unfair to jay.

HTT actually needs to move to China and go bask in they're non-American form of communist capitalists and get away from the evil hominid aliens.

MTS does argue well. She is one of the most intelligent and best-arguing liberals that I have ever argued with. However, when I clown on France's and Germany's economies, she defends them...it is obvious to me that she likes the welfare state and wishes to see it expanded. She may not be a 100% socialist, but she loves public transportation and universal healthcare so much and hates carbon so much that France would be an ideal environment for her to live in. When she weighs her would-be-utopian ideals against the catastrophe they would cause our economy, she simply starts deriding American consumerism and the too-long American work week.

So, she belongs in France, HTT belongs in China, and jay, well, jay belongs in a high school government class...or maybe clown college.
August 4, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

But you're right, while jay and HTT can fairly be grouped together because of their arguing abilities, MTS deserves respect as an intelligent but misled idealist who defends economically-suicidal-environmentalism and populist programs with an uncanny trust for government, and more importantly its ability to affect things positively without screwing things up, and its ability to make everything kumbaya for as many people as possible.

At least she normally makes concessions in her arguing back and forth, and when it comes down to it. She is willing to lose a lot of our well-being for the things she believes in (even though, people like you and me and most of America may actually value the economy first), and that is her defense...but at least she has one that she can back up.
August 4, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Pardon for my refusal to actually proofread. My last couple of paragraphs kind of trip one up.
August 4, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Wow...I've never felt so insulted and yet flattered in my life!

Anyway, I actually wouldn't mind seeing what it would be like to live in another country before I die. But I doubt it would be permanent. I like a lot of the cultural beliefs and mindsets of Europeans, but, at heart, I love my fellow Americans.

We gripe way too much at each other in political forums, both online and offline, but when push comes to shove, I know my neighbor who called me a Socialist (that seriously happened) would actually be the first to have my back if I needed it!

And vice versa.
August 4, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

mytwosense,

I was hoping I would have the chance to say hello today. Well, hello!

No offense meant, really, except that I assert that you are a liberal, and I would personally be offended by that.
August 4, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I would have your back! I actually married a lib..

It didn't take long for me to change her mind, though I attribute it more to her feelings for me rather than my arguing abilities. Once she accepted my points, she caved rather than arguing. Only person I have ever converted (besides myself), though not the only I have ever taught a lesson to.

Anyway, she is still hell-bent on recycling, even when we are out of space in the bins, and she badly wants to own a hybrid despite the fact that it is ultimately uneconomical (costs of purchase and repairs, though it has good resell value).
August 4, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"You have no defense for my attacks"

that's exactly my point...you're not even attacking me at this point, junior...you're attacking a strawman you've constructed for yourself.

you know...if you could refute any of my positions you wouldn't have to attack me...you could just support your own stuff.

yours and eli's behavior in this regard is nearly identical to mcsame's in this election year. he simply can't run on The Track Record or his policy stances and, like you two trolls, can't defend either...thus he, and you, are forced to resort to attacking your opponents instead of trying to refute their positions and establish your own.

as i've said in the past to eli, he's been relegated to the Pouting Troll role at this point because he's been intellectually spanked so many times that he know is afraid to post his own opinions and just obsesses about mine...latest posts about a nonissue and conspiracy theories about cheating.

for the record, AGAIN, eli...when you say that i've been "dishonest"...you either need to back it up or concede the fact that i didn't lie. none of my data is "tainted"...it isn't inaccurate and doesn't represesnt a problem with my position on this matter. as always you've tried to make this case but have failed miserably...all while CONTINUING TO NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE A SINGLE POSITION OF MINE ON THIS BLOG.

as i've repeated several times...from now on when i paste that trend i'm just going to include the price ranges for the whole years in question...it actually helps my point....so again...i thank you and hope that in the future, when i post yet another politically inconvenient fact with which you're uncomfortable, you'll take the opportunity to reduce the whining and increase your attempts to actually refute my point.

please...stop lying.

stop obsessing.

stop whining.

start thinking and defending your own opinions...because you're not having any luck attacking mine.

oh...and eli...my poor little abused blogger...."trolling" isn't defined as cornering someone after they post extremist rhetotic and making them admit they were wrong using credible factual data.

nice try though...and yet another example of why you yourself our are reigning Pouting Troll.
August 4, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Hey spenc...how's your little girl? My son has decided to start waking up every hour throughout the night. Without fail. My husband and I are walking zombies!

And yes, I'm a liberal, according to today's definition of the term. Personally, I consider myself a proponent of a true democracy by the people, for the people, and of the people. At any rate, I look forward to the day when the majority of the public realizes that "liberal" and "conservative" have been reduced to trite and limiting labels.
August 4, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "she badly wants to own a hybrid despite the fact that it is ultimately uneconomical (costs of purchase and repairs, though it has good resell value)."

My husband just mentioned to me last night that he read a Popular Mechanics article once about a carberatuer (sp?) that was designed for 60 mpg. An oil company bought the patent and shelved it.

If that's true, think how much it cheaper it would be if we could at least retrofit our existing cars. Because yes, it will take decades to transition completely to a hybrid, all electric, or hydrogen powered fleet.
August 4, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, mytwosense,

My baby girl is adorable. She has three or four faces she makes that are irresistable. There is the "O" with her mouth while simultaneously moving her eyes all over the place that just makes me fall in love with her all over again. However, we exchanged fussiness for constipation when we got her some Zantax (which I would have avoided). She still wakes up every two hours (which is decidedly better than every hour to be sure).

I don't believe in Democracy. I believe in the Republic in which we exist, and I actually wish it would regress to election by state delegates as it was a long time ago. Would you like to debate that today?

And I see liberal and conservative as to extreme ends in a spectrum, and alternately, the American two-party system. The latter view is of a political America where we are forced to make our alliances first. Believe me, I would be very happy if we had a gazillion different parties.
August 4, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTW, I have heard of the oil companies doing that type of thing with technologies. I have just never heard of them substantiated as anything other than conspiracy theories.

jay, here is your homework assignment; explain to me how it is a strawman argument (start by defining strawman), and then when you have deconstructed it, construct your own, more reasonable argument.
August 4, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And jay, Obama has not exactly been forthcoming about his positions...he spends a lot of time blathering about platitudes, not producing real solutions (or even far-left bass-ackward solutions that won't work...he just rails on about platitudes).

That is the point of the commercial to which you refer. He has made himself a pop star with a smattering of groupies, but he has not proposed anything but "change." What change (besides the obvious...universal healthcare). What is his answer to energy policy, flooding the American market with two days worth of oil from our reserves.
August 4, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"An oil company bought the patent and shelved it."

I don't know anything about this story, but patent laws in general can be pretty screwed up. Ever read about gene patents? Very messed up stuff if you ask me.
August 4, 2008

2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow....the last time i tried to explain to you how you were using a strawman argument you got so cornered that the only way you could not be using a strawman argument is if the statement, "all iranians are evil" WAS NOT a generalization.

if you don't know that setting up a false position (strawman) and then debunking that position (knocking down the strawman)...instead of refuting a party's actual position is "using a strawman argument"...then you're going to need more tutoring and help than i can give you.

once again, spencer jr, we've seen you give positions about obama (like your assertion that his solutions are "far-left bass-ackward")....but no facts.

what is interesting to note, however, is that you believe his positions to be "socialist, far left, bassackward, etc etc"...but the majority of the country disagrees with you.

do you believe the majority of americans to be far left, bass-ackward socialists?

it would seem that this would shed some light on you and eli's position on the political spectrum.

as far as energy policy...i like obama's stance that we need to largely end the corporate welfare for big oil while redistributing some of that money to alternative energy r and d. i agree with him that we need to increase domestic drilling...particularly in the millions of acres of ocs and mainland that is already approved for drilling. in addition, i've said for months that we should support the leveraging of our sor's to give the consumers a break during the high travel season. couple that with a change in the republican policies that have devalued the dollar and destabilized the middle east plus additional oversight of the speculative markets and BOOM...real, productive, common sense energy policy.

furthermore, i think we should reserve tax breaks for the oil companies in exchange for increased drilling on lands already available to them. they increase domestic production that stays in the us and they get a tax break.

what i don't agree with is a blanket 3.8 billion dollar tax break program seen under mcsame.

we've been giving them massive tax breaks for years and it still hasn't fostered stable prices so i don't see continuing failed policies without a plan to get some return on investment.

no one is talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here people....as many right wing extremists are fond of saying these days.

you guys have failed to make this election about immigration, socialism, abortion, gay marriage, race, elitism, etc etc etc...making it about some mythical opposition to lowering gas prices isn't going to fly either.

at some point you're going to have to actually address real policy stances and The Track Record.
August 4, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"when you say that i've been "dishonest"...you either need to back it up or concede the fact that i didn't lie"

LOL! Okay buddy. You presented average prices for 1992 and 2000 in comparison to the peak price in 2008. If you insist on telling yourself that this is an honest way to present information, have at it I guess, but you make yourself look like a fool doing so.

"it isn't inaccurate and doesn't represesnt a problem with my position on this matter"

Yes it does, because you've claimed numerous times that there has been a 500% increase in the price of crude. Of course, when we show averages for the whole year and account for inflation that is not the case.
There has been a significant increase in the price of oil. There's not debating that. However, your numbers skew the reality of that price increase. That is dishonest. But if it makes you feel better to tell yourself otherwise, I can't stop you.
August 4, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay,
"All Iranians are evil" is NOT a generalization. It is an absolute statement. Do we really need to explain the difference to you again?

The statement "all Iranians are evil" is not a TRUE absolute statement, but the fact that it is not true does not make it a generalization. It's still an absolute statement, it's just a false one.
August 4, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

case in point...that's awesome.

"You presented average prices for 1992 and 2000 in comparison to the peak price in 2008"

this is a lie. again...i gave a range of data for 2008 instead of just saying "today" so that i wouldn't have to look up the current price of oil everytime i posted that politically inconvenient trend.

there is no liberal conspiracy theory, eli, i'm just saving time...and i'm not being dishonest.

nice try.

stop lying about me and try to elevate your game enough that you can keep up instead of nipping at my heels all day.

btw...if oil was 23/barrel in 2000...how much has it increased as of today?
August 4, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

spencerr: "I don't believe in Democracy. I believe in the Republic in which we exist, and I actually wish it would regress to election by state delegates as it was a long time ago. Would you like to debate that today?"

Oh, let's save that for another day. I can see it will be an epic debate, and I'm about to sign off for the date.

As for oil companies buying up certain patents, Shell does hold patents on electric cars/batteries. It's not a secret at all. I think if you Googled it, you could eventually find some more information on that. And, I imagine they aren't the only oil company out there who has intercepted promising technology that would have reduced our need for so much gas.

Bottom line, I guess it's not illegal for them to do so, either. But it's certainly an example of how ruthless the industry can be, or at least certain factions of it. They've got us in a tight grip, whether you want to admit it or not. Personally speaking, I want out.
August 4, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Jay, you are adorable.

You might want to learn how to use that scroll bar.

"1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon

2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon

2008
$140+/barrel
$4+/gallon"
-jay @ 11:21am

"You presented average prices for 1992 and 2000 in comparison to the peak price in 2008."
-Eli @2:30

"this is a lie. again...i gave a range of data for 2008 instead of just saying "today"
-Jay @3:04

As we can see here, you presented averages for 1992 and 2000 in comparison to peak price in 2008. Then, when I point it out, you accuse me of lying. Wow. Good lord man, your own writing is right there in black and white right in front of your face and now you deny it! Unbelievable!
August 4, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Oh, and your little girl sounds darling! My son had a bit of acid reflux, too, and we did resort to the Xantac a few times. I wasn't crazy about doing so, but the poor guy really seemed in pain sometimes. And it seemed to give him relief.
August 4, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sorry, eli, i was talking about the second time i addressed those number...again. no liberal conspiracy at work...just trying not to have to look up the "today" number every time.

since we've come full circle on the whining...i'm just going to cut and paste my stuff from above until you come to terms with it.

eli...i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread...but pouting about it isn't going to change the facts.

in 2008 oil went to 140+ a barrel and 4+ a gallon. there's no conspiracy at work...i just post that little beauty a lot and don't want to look up the "today" prices every time i do. would it make you feel better if i just post ~$125-145/barrel under the 2008 number?

there's nothing wrong with the data my little footsoldier....no one is lying....no one is "cheating". you just need to come to terms with the fact that you're either going to have to elevate your game or stop nipping at my heels like a little dog everytime i post something that is politically inconvenient for you.

now...would you like to refute my position on this trend or was the whining all you had?
August 5, 2008

5:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"no liberal conspiracy at work...just trying not to have to look up the "today" number every time."

As always, you are the only one to mention any conspiracies. I've advanced no conspiracy theories here, jay. The second time you posted, you presented a price range for 2008 in comparison to averages for 1992 and 2000 while failing to account for inflation. Not quite as bad as your first post, but I already demonstrated to you how you could easily present the significant increase in oil prices over the years without looking like a hack and it seems that you'd rather just continue to be a hack. Whatever floats your boat I guess....but you'll look like a fool every time.

"eli...i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread...but pouting about it isn't going to change the facts."

Jay, jay....have you STILL not learned about assertions like this? No matter how many times you tell yourself things like this, it won't make them true. But, I suppose you have to do what's necessary to console yourself over constantly embarrassing yourself, and who am I to stop you? Go ahead and do what you need to.

"i just post that little beauty a lot and don't want to look up the "today" prices every time i do."

Yes, and when you do you post it in comparison to averages for 1992 and 2000. Posting the highest price for the year in comparison to averages for years past makes you a pathetic, dishonest hack. Using averages that have not been adjusted for inflation makes it even worse, and I will make you my intellectual b*tch every time you do it. No conspiracy at work, just you getting your usual spanking. Spencerr is not your daddy, jay. I am.

"there's nothing wrong with the data my little footsoldier"

Very true. There is something wrong with you and your constant need to slant the data in any way you can. Every time you do that, you'll be exposed. I'm sorry you don't like that, but no amount of pouting will make the beatings stop.

"now...would you like to refute my position on this trend or was the whining all you had?"

I don't take issue with the position that there are multiple factors involved with the increase in the cost of oil. However, your claims about a 500% increase in the cost of oil that you have made many times are a flat out lie, as demonstrated with some simple mathematics.
Rounding to the nearest dollar, the average price in 1992 (adjusted for 2007 dollars) was $30 per barrel. Average in 2008 so far is $98.
This makes a difference of a little bit under 300%, and means that you are off by a about 200% in your assertion. That's a significant increase in the cost of oil, no doubt. 200% is also a significant amount to be off by.
Now, would you like to correct yourself or does the spanking on this topic need to drag on?
By the way, "you bet I like poking you with a stick".
August 5, 2008

5:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Oops, I should have said a little "over" 300%, not "under".

That's called a correction, jay. It's what you do when you post something that's incorrect, like the first few times you posted your garbage "today" numbers before you had to be corrected. A simple "oops, let me fix that" would have done just fine, but instead you had to throw a temper tantrum and struggle to save face much like you're doing here when being called on your numbers again.
Take notes on that, because I'm sure you'll need to recall what a correction is many, many times in the future.
August 5, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"that he know is afraid to post his own opinions and just obsesses about mine"

Oh, and this should be addressed too. As demonstrated by my 8:55 post, this is a blatant lie. You've repeated this lie many times, please do not do so again as it's been demonstrated on this very thread that it is false.
How many lies of yours must we expose before you start posting honestly, jay? It's virtually pathetic how full of it you are. Biggest pathological liar on the entire website.
August 5, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

since you still can't refute my point or prove that i "lied" or was "dishonest" about anything, i take it we're done here my little Pouting Troll.
August 5, 2008

8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

LOL! Great rebuttal, jay. Better luck next time.
August 6, 2008

6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

mytwosense,

I want out too, and I didn't say I didn't believe you. I had just never heard of it being anything more than a rumor. I was once a liberal (who still voted a straight Republican ticket), and I used that talking point quite often (that oil purchases patents for alternative energy). I have problems completely coming to grips with the idea for three reasons; 1. Oil is heavily invested in alternative energies. Why would they shelve one? 2. If the alternative really has higher potential, wouldn't one oil company want a monopoly in it...to blow their competition out of the water. Why wouldn't they develop it? 3. The visual media has a strong Left bent; why aren't they fussing more about it?

All that being said, I believe there may be some truth to your point.

I would like to see oil go away. I run around in the Green Mountain area (or did before Ms. Jr. came along), and in the winter, I can't help but to smell the heavy pollution; it is sickening.

I would like to see the end of big money going into the pockets of not-so-benevolent foreign regimes, such as most of the middle east, Russia, and Venezuela. Have you ever seen a Saudi palace? Have you ever seen how horrible Saudi people's (in general) living conditions are? There is something wrong when oil profits are invested in hundreds of thousands of square feet of decidence and hundreds of sports cars and Rolls Royces when the people are starving. And, a huge chunk of that money belonged to American taxpayers at one point.

So, it would be nice for oil to go away. It is just difficult to swallow the price hikes on my energy bill when very inefficient solar and wind takes over...and if it is not more expensive on my energy bill, it will be for my tax bill.
August 6, 2008

6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

MTW,

And the Xantac was definitely not my idea. My wife is in tears that my daughter is in such pain, but haven't all babies from the beginning of time had to deal, to one extent or the other, with that pain? I realize my wife's need to sleep, but reliance on medication to remedy temporary and natural discomforts is a little out there for me, especially when the side effects are just as bad as the original problem.

My wife and her sister are the two main reasons I believe that the healthcare system needs to be market-based. Superfluous pursuits of medicine based in unfounded paranoia. I have been receiving $0.40 perscriptions like crazy since the baby was born. Some for mastitis, which is a big deal, some for paranoia, which drives me nuts. I guarantee that if those perscriptions were twenty bucks instead of 40 cents, we would not have gotten them.

...I hope your baby has started letting you sleep again. I wound up staying home yesterday because my wife was so tired from the night before that she was at the end of her rope. I did baby duty yesterday.
August 6, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Were you stationed in Saudi, spencerr?
August 6, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

No. Give me the lowdown on Saudi. I have seen pictures of Saudi mansions that were bigger than DIA, covered in sparkly stuff, with the front lawn covered in very expensive cars.
August 6, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I may be mistaken about Saudi...I know that they do send a lot of their people over hear, on the government payroll, to attend school.
August 6, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Perhaps, I should have noted Iran or pre-911 Iraq instead of Saudi???
August 6, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

I couldn't give you the lowdown on Saudi, spencerr. I've only been to Kuwait and Iraq. I just thought from your post about it that you might have been stationed there.
August 6, 2008

9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

All I really know about them is that their princes are filthy rich because of the state's involvement in oil. I have never been anywhere but Hawaii and San Antonio...so needless to say, I generally try to ignore my service because others like you have done so much more.
August 6, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Regarding your 9:20 post, yeah Iraq was kind of like that. Massive palaces for Saddam and other high level politicians and generals, while the rest of the country was quite poor. The Baath party was hoarding the food from the Oil for Food program in huge warehouses in Tikrit- we found several that were packed floor to ceiling. Who knows what they were doing with it...it was just sitting there and had obviously been there for some time.
After we found it we had squads of infantry pulling guard shifts on the warehouses until the higher command could decide what to do with it (wonderful use of time and resources- guarding bags of rice in a war zone....). In the meantime, two busloads of Baath party officials show up demanding that we relinquish the warehouse back to them as if they're still in power.
We confiscated their buses and sent them walking home to Baghdad.
Anyway....yeah, much of the same corruption existed in Iraq so I suppose either would be a decent comparison...but I couldn't really say much one way or the other about Saudi. All I know about the place is what I've read or heard from others.
August 6, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I just ran across an article that sheds some light (http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/i...) on some of the economy and the relative fall of per capita income even as oil had a boom. The only thing I would note about it is that the author assumed that a spike in oil prices at the time was temporary, when it is obviously still spiking.

It sounds like their rich are filthy rich, and their poor are poorer than before and are an even larger majority than before.

I might add that their government composes much of their economy, especially the part of the economy dependant upon oil. It doesn't sound like the people have benefitted too much.
August 6, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still waiting on you to refute that point, eli...or prove that i "lied" or was "dishonest".

otherwise...i'll consider us done.
August 6, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"still waiting on you to refute that point, eli"

Which one? Your 500% point has been refuted with some simple math, your dishonesty has been demonstrated by showing the correct numbers and the inflation adjustments, and your statement about my being "scared to post opinions" is proven a lie by my 8:55 post earlier in the thread. Did I miss something?
August 6, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

If you guys are still going on about demand, I'd also like to throw in my two cents.

When you talk about demand the way the media reports it, it is the equivalent of quantity demanded at a specific price, and it equals the quantity supplied at that same price. So, when they say "oil demanded", it is actually oil consumed. It is not demand from the economics supply and demand model.

So, when you say demand has increased thirty percent, you are actually saying that consumption has gone up thirty percent.

In short, jay, you are doing nothing more than reporting increased consumption and increased price and erroneously correlating the two together when there is far more at play.
August 6, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

In fact, the reason that price has increased nominally 500% (as opposed to its real increase), is because demand has been outstripping supply because of various world events. From the demand side, there has been growth in world population and rampant industrial growth in the two economies with the largest world population. On the supply side, you can blame both speculation and inaction over the last thirty years or so in America related to increasing drilling and refining capacity.
August 6, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

In short jay, you have been comparing apples with oranges and declaring victory.

If you wanted to compare apples to apples with regard to demand, you would have to estimate the demand curve now and thirty years ago. It is something that is currently beyond my abilities. An important thing to look at would be various quantities demanded at different real prices during the span about which you are speaking. You can estimate the demand curves and put them side by side, but what would that accomplish. Really, what would you get from that? Yeah, the demand curve in 2008 is flatter, seems less linear, and is shifted further upward and to the right. So what? You wouldn't know what to do with that information, jay.
August 6, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Stop it, spencerr. You're going to make his brain implode again, and I will be quite angry with you if you break my favorite punching bag.
August 6, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay, here is a good link for economics of oil. You will note that you have been talking about the market-clearing price for oil at specific times. That is all. Not the demand that you have been arguing about for the last three days. So stop throwing around your goofy numbers. You can't draw correlations between them and anything else without more data.

I can build you a model that will draw the correlations between oil price and any "event" that you can think of. If you think the price of oil is related to an increase in baby farts in China, get me the data for the farts, and I will build you a model and let you know how much, if any, they affected the price of oil.

But no, you can't draw any conclusions about the demand (a dynamic and elusive invisible line on a piece of paper) for oil based on one price and a quantity demanded.

The only conclusion that you can draw from the data that you site is that in 2008, oil was 140 dollars a barrel, and it was much cheaper before.

Any economist, including the ones who don't like markets, will tell you that this event is likely caused by one of two things...limited supply and/or increased demand.

The magic speculation fairies don't exist in the world of real economics. Speculators are just one variable in whatever model someone (I am sure) has already built.

Read the lesson.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2899
August 6, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Alright spencerr, now you're pissing me off. You've just officially set off a competition for the title of "jay's daddy". It's on :)
August 6, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bookem writes:

Spencer, Eli...

Believe me when I say that I appreciate all you're trying to do for jay, but you are wasting your time.

He's been posting the same stuff now for 4+ months as if its something brilliant.

I've asked him several times to show me how much demand has gone up in relation to price and have yet to hear back.

It makes for good reading though, thanks for that much!
August 6, 2008

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

No, Bookem,

Everytime you ask him, he tells gives you the equilibrium point where demand intersects supply (market-clearing price, and the quantity at which it clears), and he gives you the price for it!

However, jay, let's not confuse that with "demand."
August 7, 2008

7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, Eli, yesterday as I was leaving Boulder, I noticed a middle-age white man in the corner of a busy intersection, dressed in business casual and holding a sign that read, "Obama is a Commie."

I had flashbacks to the beginning of Die Hard with a Vengeance. I was surprised not to see a headline this morning in the paper reading "Man holding sign beaten to death in Boulder."
August 7, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still waiting for you to prove that you didn't lie when you said i was "lying" or "dishonest" eli.

still waiting.

spencer jr...you still can't refute my point that demand hasn't gone up 300% (thanks for doing the inflation math, eli)...and therefore isn't quite the factor you believe it is to explain The Trend.

as eli said, it's just math.
August 7, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

What, did you not read the posts I left for you, Eli. I completely tore apart your theory that you are even discussing "demand" when you post your consumption numbers.

Long story short, the numbers you keep posting are the market clearing prices and the quantity supplied and demanded at that price during different points in a timeline. It is not "demand," and you cannot ascertain any specific conclusions from it except that we produce, and consume, a specific quantity of coal at a given price.

You can't make the conclusions you make using this data. I just at your lunch, little boy, and you still confusedly march forward with your highly-flawed argument.
August 7, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

jay...sorry eli, the last post was for jay.

Read it jay. And when you are done, go back to high school or clown college or wherever it is you come from.
August 7, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

one more time, junior.

has demand increased 300% (when adjusted for inflation...thanks again eli)?

just a simple yes or no will suffice, junior
August 7, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I don't know, and neither do you, jay. You confused little man.
August 7, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

What a troll! I just completely made him look like a moron, and yet he presses on with the same argument that was completely stupid in the first place.

You can write English, jay. What, you can't read it? Go back over the posts.
August 7, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Hey spencerr, do you remember playing "army" or "cowboys and indians" or any other "guns" type game when you were a kid?
Remember how there was always that one kid who you could nail over and over, and when you'd say "hey, I got you, you're out" he'd always just scream "no you didn't"? Or if you were playing with water guns, the one kid who would insist that you never got him even though he is soaked from head to toe?
That annoying kid would be jay, and he never grew out of that stage.
August 7, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"still waiting for you to prove that you didn't lie when you said i was "lying" or "dishonest" eli."

I already did, jay. Use that scroll bar. Read very slowly and carefully to give your brain time to absorb the words on the screen in front of you.
I will not repeat myself just because you have such a hard time keeping up. Just scroll up and read the posts again if you're confused about where your lies and deceptions on this thread have been exposed. The numbers you presented were deceptive at best, and your statement about me being "too scared to post opinions" is a blatant lie. I've already demonstrated this earlier in the thread and there is no need for me to do so again.

The scroll bar is that little thing with the arrows on the right side of your screen. Try it out. It moves the text on the page up and down, so you can review things that have been said earlier in the thread. Read the thread again and maybe it'll help you with your confusion.

If you need help with your reading, try one of these sites:
http://abcteach.com/directory/reading...
http://www.rhlschool.com/reading.htm
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnec...

Of if the scroll bar is what's giving you so much trouble, try this book:
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dummi...
August 7, 2008

1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Eli, regarding you likening jay to the kid you could never kill no matter how many times you nailed him...

I would also like to add that jay is using a paintball gun that completely backfires most of the time.

He accidentally shoots himself in the face, and then he refuses to put up his hands and surrender, even though he just killed himself.
August 7, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I don't know"

so you're spouting theories about supply and demand even though you have no idea what facts you're basing these "feelings" on, junior?

enough said.

wow...it only took us 5 days to get there.

well done.

next time don't run so long.

no eli...as of august 7 you've never once (after repeated failed attempts) proved that i lied or was dishonest about anything i've posted on the rocky.

better luck next time...and remember kids....pouting isn't going to help.
August 7, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

You've got to be kidding, jay. Is that seriously the best you can do? All you did was pout a bit and shout "NO!". There was no substance to your "rebuttal" whatsoever. How is your claim that I'm "scared to post opinions" not a lie? It's been proven false on this thread.
How is comparing a peak price for this year to averages for previous years even remotely close to an honest assessment of the cost of oil?
August 7, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

"so you're spouting theories about supply and demand even though you have no idea what facts you're basing these "feelings" on, junior?"

Jay, did you even read spencerr's posts? I've seen you get some very severe beatings on this site before, but the one you just got from spencerr was probably the worst one I've ever seen anybody on this site take- regardless of which end of the political spectrum they are on. You're severely embarrassing yourself here and you don't even seem to realize it.
August 7, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Shooting himself in the face with a paintball gun.

Alas, Eli, there is no more I can do. You are on your own.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: The new-energy depression

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs