The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

You are.

Well, I'm still not sure where I've ever said anything particularly pessimistic on this (or any other board). But I meant I thought I was and iSm wasn't (since he is the one who labelled me such).

No biggie though. There's plenty of room over here and if we were all morbidly pessimistic in the form that I apparently am, humanity would be a reasonably happy group of people.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You are predicting oil at $350/barrel (based on your $7/gallon)? Not going to happen.

That's some funny math there. It's $3/gallon now with oil at $71/barrel. It's been relatively linear (~$2 when it was at $50/barrel, ~$2.50 when it was at $60/barrel), so $7/gallon would be around $165/barrel. And it wouldn't be surprising if, once it passed $100, that linear relationship accelerates, hitting $7/gallon even sooner.

Meanwhile, I heard one economist with an eye on oil estimate that if supplies were what the "should be" (i.e., Iraq and Nigeria in particular producing at full capacity), the price "should be" $55/barrel.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

That's some funny math there.

Well, no it isn't. ISM put OIL, not GAS, at $7/gallon. I am open to the possibility that he meant gas, and in retrospect he probably did. Oil at $7/gallon equals oil at $385/barrel (I mistakenly figured it out for a 50 gallon barrel originally).

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Too bad she won't be around for the real fun of worldwide water shortages.

Not according to those who subscribe to global warming.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+t...3-5895784.html

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Not according to those who subscribe to global warming.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+t...3-5895784.html

What is this "subscribe" business? It's as if you can choose to plug your ears and say lalalalalala 5 times and it will disappear. It's not a choice or a subscription. It's only a choice to be ignorant or not.

(My little visit to Harvard really opened my eyes even further.)

[Gemini Cricket]

Man, I'm so addicted to oil that all this talk is driving me bonkers, man. Anyone wanna hook me up with some Penzoil, man? Anyone wanna hit me with some 10W-30? C'mon, man. I'll get ya back later.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Man, I'm so addicted to oil that all this talk is driving me bonkers, man. Anyone wanna hook me up with some Penzoil, man? Anyone wanna hit me with some 10W-30? C'mon, man. I'll get ya back later.

Meet me behind the gas station in 20 minutes.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes folks, a Haavard grad in 15 minutes!

Drive-thru degrees!!!









(and yes, I mean gas, not oil, in my doom & gloom prediction post. Sorry for the error in nasty pessimism.)

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes folks, a Haavard grad in 15 minutes!

Drive-thru degrees!!!

It was more like 10.

Man, you're in a mood today! Get better by tomorrow or I will have to sit on you.



I don't pretend to be a scientist - I'm far from it, but when I experience loads of really smart scientists saying the same thing, I tend to take their expert word on it. I guess It's too important of a phenonmenon to doubt. I mean, can something REALLY be bad about us being more conservation minded? Wouldn't it be smart just to do it?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I don't pretend to be a scientist - I'm far from it, but when I experience loads of really smart scientists saying the same thing, I tend to take their expert word on it.

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".


A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.