HUR slams head against keyboard for hooksaw failure to understand how statistics work, what chaotic systems are, and the difference between weather and climate.

5/15/2008 9:00:01 AM

^ Keep slamming your head, you stupid motherfucker--your numbskull doesn't feel anything anyway. Another wheel comes off the global warming scam just about every day and you fucking know it.

And you obviously don't understand shit about supporting your argument. I posted real figures from a legitimate source: NOAA. What have you offered to refute my position other than your bullshit comments and laughable opinions? The answer is self-evident.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the March 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in March (28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, surpassing the previous record set in 1994 by 10.9%. Sea ice extent for March has increased at a rate of 4.2%/decade."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#seaice

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 9:27:13 AM

Hey jackass maybe you have the memory of a fucking baboon but in every other global warming thread you create or get on your blow horn; in my responses i NEVER go with the hell and doomsday global warming nightmare liberal stance.

I always point out how variation in the short term does not mean an end to a long term trend which is what you always try to debate. Whether this trend is human related or not is inconsequential. Nonetheless i believe that since earth for the most part is a 'closed system' thermodynamically it is possible that all the energy releasing processes and C02 emissions we create could cause a slight upward push on global temperatures. I just do not think the human impact is as serious as al gore or all the liberal hippies make it out to be.

Regarding your evidence i have read similar articles on noaa. so i agree with you that sea ice was greater then average this winter. however, if you read more into the article you will discover that there is a physical difference between the "new ice" which was created this winter; and "old ice" which takes many winters to accumulate. The "new ice" is less enduring then the "old ice" and more likely to melt faster.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : aa]

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM. Reason : aa]

5/15/2008 10:16:48 AM

^ DEY TUK UR OLD ICE!!!1

STFU.

5/15/2008 12:47:30 PM

Well, that was a well thought out response. There is a fundamental difference between older, more compacted ice and seasonally formed ice.

5/15/2008 12:52:37 PM

^

hooksaw: Lies that is just something liberals say as part of the conspiracy to support global warming!

5/15/2008 1:23:16 PM

global warming is NOT a long term threat

we'll run out before it becomes one

5/15/2008 1:25:25 PM

Quote :

"Obvioulsy the Bush family has profited personally from the increase in oil prices as major players in the oil realm. I'm not looking to start a debate on the underlying ethics. "

From todays evidence that bush actually lost wealth while president, Obviously shoots holes in your theory, but made me laugh at this personal gain arguement dems love to throw out.

5/16/2008 6:32:14 PM

Quote :

"Obvioulsy"

Now Jax, would you care to retract your first statement in this thread?

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : 2]

5/16/2008 6:37:16 PM

king abdullah of saudi arabia

5/16/2008 6:37:36 PM

I'll tell you what, King Abdullah is the one guy who might enable Obama to actually lower gas prices if he becomes President.

Bush's mishandling of Iraq and Israel have not done him any favors with moderate OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia. Put a guy like Obama in the White House, and maybe Abdullah will be more willing to ramp up production.

5/16/2008 6:43:29 PM

Quote :

"global warming is NOT a long term threat we'll run out before it becomes one "

We'll run out of what? Fossil fuels? There is a hell of a lot more coal in the ground than oil. Enough to push the amount of CO2 in the air past 500 ppm. If greenhouse gases get that high the Earth will be fucked for a long time.

And don't forget that CO2 has a long atmospheric shelf-life. The CO2 that we have released into the atmosphere will stay there for several thousand years.

5/16/2008 6:53:15 PM

hahahahah, to the creator of this thread and his supporters:

Quote :

"Bush May Have Lost Wealth During Presidency By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 16, 2008; A05 President Bush's financial fortunes appear to have declined over the past seven years, with his family assets dropping as low as $6.5 million, according to disclosure forms released yesterday. Bush and his wife, Laura, were worth at least $9 million and as much as $24 million at the start of his term. The Bushes could still be worth as much as $20 million now, according to the financial documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics, which requires assets to be reported only within broad ranges. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, have fared better, reporting assets of at least $21 million and as much as $99 million, the forms show. The Cheneys are at least as wealthy as they were when the vice president entered office, and may have added as much as $29 million to their net worth during his tenure. President Bush's biggest asset is a 1,600-acre family ranch near Crawford, Tex., which is listed as being worth between $1 million and $5 million. Most of the Bush family holdings are in real estate and a blind trust. Last year, Bush reported assets of a minimum of $7.5 million. The forms show that Bush and Cheney both received a variety of gifts last year, mostly related to outdoor activities. Among the gifts Bush kept were a $6,160 bicycle given to him by a Wisconsin bike manufacturer, custom Hawaiian shirts and fly-fishing equipment. Cheney received a two-day vacation and a book on duck calls from the Greenbriar Lodge of Carlisle, Ark., valued at $1,600. He also received an $801 gift package from the Fox television show "24," including director's chairs, coffee mugs and DVDs. The annual financial disclosure forms filed with the ethics office report assets and income figures in wide categories, making it impossible to determine exact figures on wealth. Tax forms released last month, however, showed 2007 income of $924,000 for the Bushes and $3 million for the Cheneys."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503534_pf.html


The last bolded part was put in there in full disclosure. Unlike others who like to throw around conjecture left and right, I at least point out the weakness here in my argument.

Nonetheless, the findings should refute, with facts that some could not come up with/.

/thread

5/18/2008 7:28:33 PM

Quote :

"Obvioulsy the Bush family has profited personally from the increase in oil prices as major players in the oil realm. I'm not looking to start a debate on the underlying ethics."

Hahah yep. Keep telling yourself that buddy.

5/18/2008 11:36:38 PM

bttt, I want to hear from Jax883, Vix, moron, and HUR

5/19/2008 8:43:22 AM

Quote :

"I want to hear from Jax883"

5/19/2008 9:26:40 AM

PM sent to remind him. Lets start a count of how long it takes him/her to reply

From : Oeuvre
To : Jax883
Received : Monday May 19, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Subject : You should check your thread.... and your facts
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=526224&page=2

5/19/2008 9:37:35 AM

Quote :

"CUSTOM HAWAIIAN SHIRTS"

5/19/2008 9:55:56 AM

2 hours.

5/19/2008 11:21:05 AM

3 hours.

5/19/2008 12:42:45 PM

5/19/2008 1:04:27 PM

^your last graph is total horseshit. You and I both know chaney cant reclaim his haliburton stock. Oh and what is a graph supposed to look like for soilders deaths? Do one for car related deaths in the US, start at 0 and show the growth over 7 years.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:13:52 PM

With those graphs being posted in here and all, you would think that Cheney is the CEO or something.

5/19/2008 1:23:21 PM

4 hours

5/19/2008 1:37:28 PM

^^^ I didn't make the graphs, but it's the first one I found with Halliburton's revenues for the war. You can totally dismiss the deaths graph, I didn't care about it. And the topic of this thread directly refer to "bush's people" of which Cheney's friends in Halliburton count a part of. And you're pretty naive if you don't think the good Cheney and Bush have done for the oil industry won't come around back to them once they're out of office.

^^ I can't tell if you're kidding there or not, but you realize Cheney was the CEO at one point? Do you honestly thing he WOULDN'T, just by the sheer principles of human nature, look out for his old company, which also happens to be part of the infamous oil industry?

5/19/2008 1:44:32 PM

Quote :

"And you're pretty naive if you don't think the good Cheney and Bush have done for the oil industry won't come around back to them once they're out of office."

conjecture. You cannot say this with any sort of credibility. Please refrain.

Also, since, you know, Halliburton is a defense contractor, why wouldn't their revenues go up during war time? Drawing graphs of Halliburton's stock price over the course of the Iraq war does not indict a an administration for being in the tank for that company. Other companies stock prices have gone through the roof too. Look at Boeing. $35 in 2003. $105 IN 2007. OMG BUSH IS HELPING HIS BUDDIES AT BOEING!

Quote :

"I can't tell if you're kidding there or not, but you realize Cheney was the CEO at one point? Do you honestly thing he WOULDN'T, just by the sheer principles of human nature, look out for his old company, which also happens to be part of the infamous oil industry?"

Ok, dude, you're obviously not listening, so I'll use your resource of choice to reiterate the already reiterated:

Quote :

"As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[27] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[27] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date."

Your problem is you see concurrent events as one being caused by the other and assuming so with no evidence. Just because two events happen concurrently does not necessarily mean one was caused by the other. And under such an argument, you have the burden of proof to argue that one was caused by the other and didn't just happen to occur while the other occurred. So far, you have shown zero proof and only gave Nostradamus like predictions about what would happen after the Bush Administration is out of power.


Thank you, at the very least for arguing your misguided point instead of the yelling and hiding that Jax is doing.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 2:47:56 PM

I guess you could put in the list of people who've made money from oil price hikes, or at least halliburton's increased profits:

University of Wyoming
GWU medical faculty
Capital Partners for Education.

5/19/2008 2:52:38 PM

^ since the revenues for those 3 entities went up during the Iraq War and using the same logic as moron & co., I can safely assume and accuse The University of Wyoming, GWU Medical Faculty, and Capital Partners for Education as causing the Iraq War for their economic benefit.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 3:00:16 PM

6 hours... no Jax 883.

5/19/2008 3:37:37 PM

I don't trust most graphs without viewing the raw data any more. These two graphs show the same data, but appear very different to the casual viewer.



Article: http://softwarenerd.blogspot.com/2008/01/scale-on-global-warming-graphs.html

5/19/2008 4:11:50 PM

nice response

5/19/2008 4:18:23 PM

Jax883 is the real culprit here, though. Vix just said some shit about lobbyists because it's such an evil word and Bush is owned by them, especially the oil ones. His fortune since he became president clearly shows it.

5/19/2008 4:19:26 PM

lolz. I gave up on this thread on page 1 when the question was turned sideways and fucked twwsb style.

No one offered any numbers, black, red, or otherwise. Despite the thread title, I could care less about "yes he did" or "no he didn't", and was willing to broaded the question to include any public official on the national level.

No one offered any numbers, black, red, or otherwise.

So fuck it. Run with the thread in any direction you choose. This is why no one comes to the soapbox looking for serious debate anymore. Everyone jumps on one side of the line or the other and shouts, "You people on that side are stupid!" If I want to see this kind of mewling I can watch the talking heads on TV.

5/19/2008 6:58:23 PM

The problem is that you made an unfounded accusation, preceded it with the word "obvioulsy" as if it were common knowledge, and then called me naive for questioning your (incorrect) postulation.

I know that accountability is not all that popular on TWW, but if you are gonna make a blatantly incorrect statement in the first sentence of a thread you created in the Soapbox, then be prepared to get flamed when you can't admit that you were wrong.

5/19/2008 7:17:31 PM

Quote :

"I didn't make the graphs, but it's the first one I found with Halliburton's revenues for the war.... And the topic of this thread directly refer to "bush's people" of which Cheney's friends in Halliburton count a part of."

Yes, the government spends more money during wartime. I've bought Honeywell (Blackhwak turbine engine manufacturer) and General Dynamics (amored vehicle builder) over the past few years and have done very well with them because the government is buying more of their products. Why is it indicative of malfeasance that Halliburton has made more money as well?

As I said on the previous page:

Quote :

"Halliburton has been getting big government contracts for many years. If you want to make a point you can get together some info showing that they've received a higher percentage of contracts since Bush entered office. So far no one here has been able to do that."

5/19/2008 7:34:09 PM

Quote :

"No one offered any numbers, black, red, or otherwise. Despite the thread title, I could care less about "yes he did" or "no he didn't", and was willing to broaded the question to include any public official on the national level. No one offered any numbers, black, red, or otherwise. "

DID YOU NOT READ MY WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE. IT HAS NUMBERS, RED AND BLACK. GO READ IT.

Quote :

"Despite the thread title, I could care less about "yes he did" or "no he didn't", and was willing to broaded the question to include any public official on the national level."

Then why the fuck did you title it the way you did??? You were being inflammatory by using one person by name and meaning a whole sect of people. You jaded your own conclusion before you even made it.

5/19/2008 8:59:06 PM

Quote :

"Oil exec: Prices driven by 'fundamentals' A Senate Judiciary Committee seeks answers from Big Oil execs for rising oil prices on day that crude crossed $130 a barrel. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Amid increasing public outcry over record-shattering oil and gas prices, senators on Wednesday hauled industry executives in to testify about the recent runup. The Senate Judiciary Committee called the hearing to explore the skyrocketing price of oil, which jumped over $3 a barrel Wednesday to a new record of over $132. The committee grilled executives from Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips Co., Shell Oil Co., Chevron and BP as to how their companies can in good conscience make so much money, while American drivers pay so much at the pump. "You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?" The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control. "We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation." Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell. "The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said. In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said. The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened. "The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies." John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining. "We must work together to find a real solution," said Lowe. "U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets." The executives also named several things that Congress should not do, first among them being a hike in taxes or an undoing of the mergers of the late 1990s. "Americans need companies that can effectively compete for access to new resources," said Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron. "Punitive measures that weakened us in the face of international competition are the wrong measures." The executives also frowned on a recently passed House bill giving the Justice Department the power to sue OPEC, saying it would have little effect in boosting production. The testimony was colored by a few outbursts of protest from members of the public. Before the hearing even began, a heckler in the crowd shouted: "Stop ripping off the American public - bring these oil prices down." The panel took issue with the amount of money oil firms are investing in finding oil, and investing in renewables. "You know how much cash you have on hand compared to capital investment," said Sen. Durbin. "They are begging us for more refineries, for more exploration, when their refineries are only operating at 85 percent." Chevron's Robertson said the issue wasn't really one of refining, and more just the price of crude. We are investing all we can [in finding new oil] given the limitations of access and our own human capacity," he said. "We have adequate refined capacity, inventories are at an all time high. The issue is the price of crude." Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., likely summed up the feeling of many senators on the panel. "The people we represent are hurting, while your companies are profiting," he said. "We need to get some balance." Congress: Familiar ground for execs The hearing marked the second time in as many months that top oil industry officials have been called before Congress. In April, roughly the same lineup defended their firms before a House committee. The hearing was ostensibly called to ask the executives why they needed some $18 billion in federal subsidies in light of their record profits, but quickly became a Q&A on bigger questions in the energy business. Lawmakers criticized the firms for not investing enough in finding new oil and developing renewable resources and told them, in thinly disguised terms, that they'd be forced to enact extra profit taxes if Big Oil continued to post such large earnings. The oil men said they're making business decisions in the best interest of their shareholders. They repeated their often-stated position that the best way to lower prices and bring more oil to market is to open up wide swaths of the U.S. that are currently off-limits to drilling. Although lawmakers don't vote on energy issues strictly along party lines, Democrats generally want to increase taxes on Big Oil and use the money to fund renewable energy research. Republicans generally favor opening up the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, large parts of the Rocky Mountains, and areas off the east and west coast that have been closed to drilling since the 1970s following a public backlash after several big oil spills. The parties are widely apart on the issues - a Republican effort to expand drilling recently failed in the Senate - and a compromise is not expected soon. But both the Democrat and Republican proposals are long-term solutions that would have little impact on the nation's energy picture for several years, if not decades. In the short run, experts say there's little politicians can do to bring down the price of gas. Recent proposals to suspend the gas tax from the Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton and presumed Republican nominee John McCain were roundly criticized for leaving the government with a cash shortfall while possibly encouraging more driving, and by extension higher prices. A measure to stop filling that nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve was enacted last week with wide bipartisan support, but has done nothing so far to stem surging crude prices."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/news/economy/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2008 3:30:26 PM

Quote :

"Exxon’s annual profits increased from $11.5 billion to $40.6 billion in the past five years and there was no explanation for “why profits have gone up so high when the consumer is suffering so much.”"

this is what I don't understand. How can the profits increase so dramatically if their expenses increase with the rise in oil as well?

also:

Quote :

"Many investors believe the dollar’s protracted decline over the past year has been the most significant factor behind oil’s rise from about $66 a barrel a year ago to today’s highs. At the pump, meanwhile, the average national price of a gallon of regular gas rose 0.7 cent overnight to a record $3.807 a gallon, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Prices are 60 cents higher than a year ago "

if oil was $66 this time last year, and it has more than doubled, how can the pump prices for gas be only $.60 higher (instead of roughly last year's price at this time ~$3.00 x 2)?

5/21/2008 3:50:06 PM

not really sure I get that either.


I do know that Bush hasn't made any more money off of this.

5/21/2008 4:07:39 PM

in the senate meeting they had today, all the big 5 oil companies in the US testified that higher prices are attributed to LOW SUPPLY.

they also testified that they are currently making a profit of $0.04 per gallon sold instead of $0.10 profit per gallon a year ago.




somebody is lying their ass off. lol


(i'll get references to these quotes if they haven't already been posted, hell both democrats and republicans where like "wtf" when the oil companies presented their data)

brb

5/21/2008 4:10:32 PM

Oil companies operate in more than just one business. Your statement is absolutely right when it comes to their oil refining business: they buy oil and sell gasoline; if the price of oil and gasoline go up then their profits not substantially changed. Of course, if oil goes up and gasoline goes down they lose money, if oil goes down and gasoline goes up they make huge profits.

They are also in the oil drilling and production business. In this business, they buy drilling equipment, and then sell oil. As the equipment is used to drill the well and most operating wells are already drilled, then all oil producers do is sell oil: if oil goes up they make even more profit, if oil goes down then they make less profit.

Ok, your numbers are not right. Gasoline was a little cheaper than that, in the $2.60 range. But, back then the problem was a refinery shortage. So, although oil was half as much, getting it refined cost substantially more back when capacity was near 95% than today when refineries are operating near 80% capacity. This is because U.S. gasoline demand is falling, driving down North American gasoline prices. But chinese demand is still booming, driving up oil prices. So, some of the difference between the current price of $3.70 and the $4.40 you expect is coming out of refiner's pockets. Plus, of course, the government's 52 cents is unchanged: the real price was $2.60 - $0.52, or $2.08, so actually doubling it would net us $4.16 + $0.52, or $4.68.

This is, of course still not the whole story. But you get the idea.

5/21/2008 4:17:16 PM

Quote :

"Gasoline was a little cheaper than that, in the $2.60 range"

Quote :

"The Lundberg Survey, a bi-weekly gas price tracking service, put the price of a gallon of unleaded at $3.18 in its latest reading released late Sunday,"

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/21/news/economy/record_gas_monday/index.htm

I realize its not a simple as I made it out to be, but it still seems like A) gas was unusually high then, or B) the cost is somehow suppressed now

also:

Quote :

"back then the problem was a refinery shortage. So, although oil was half as much, getting it refined cost substantially more back when capacity was near 95% than today when refineries are operating near 80% capacity."

what happens in a refinery shortage? Actual gas is imported from other countries instead of importing oil and refining it here? There was never a noticable fuel shortage last year and it seems that a refinery drop on that scale would noticeably restrict supply...aka, stations running out of gas.

5/21/2008 4:52:23 PM

As I said, gas was indeed unusually high then and, indeed, the cost now is supressed. In the refinery shortage you call it exactly right: demand was met by gasoline imports from overseas refineries.

Now, that explains why gasoline was so expensive then. There is a different effect that is driving down gasoline prices now. Falling U.S. demand has caused the once tight refining business to become ruinously competitive. But there is more going on here still: historically the U.S. has always been a gasoline importer because Europe and Asia impose heavy taxes on motor fuels, driving consumers to use diesel engines instead. Because a barrel of oil cannot be used to make just diesel without immense cost, these refiners export the gasoline they produce to America. Now, China is growing under a similar pattern, bidding up the prices of diesel, kerosine, and industrial distillates while all the while not demanding comparable quantities of gasoline. This has been a boon for U.S. gasoline consumers which are no longer the marginal consumers. The evidence is easy to find: only a few years ago gasoline and diesel cost about the same amount at the gas station. Look today, and while gasoline is $3.75, diesel is a ruinous $4.48.

So, as I said, we are paying less for gasoline than we otherwise should.

5/21/2008 5:35:14 PM

^great explanation....thx

5/21/2008 6:32:13 PM

We needs more refineries

5/22/2008 11:26:44 AM

we need more nuclear power too

5/22/2008 11:28:58 AM

nuclear power is the best source of power this day in age by a looooong shot.


why continue swinging a loft wedge or a 9 iron all day that are going to rot away when you can get an immortal big bertha that never dies.

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 11:36:28 AM

Quote :

"The evidence is easy to find: only a few years ago gasoline and diesel cost about the same amount at the gas station. Look today, and while gasoline is $3.75, diesel is a ruinous $4.48."

part of that is the ULSD standard as well

5/22/2008 11:37:06 AM

^^^ in our engines. someday....

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : s]

5/22/2008 11:39:49 AM

^^ true.

5/22/2008 7:50:46 PM