High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Car Forum Talk about your favorite cars, setups, garages (got pics?)!

Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2007, 02:18 PM   #271  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
It's been discussed before, but you do realize that the oil companies only make the amount of money they do because of the sheer quantity they sell right? The oil industry actually has the smallest profit margins of nearly any industry on the market. What's worse, because America's oil refineries are pretty much running at 98-100% of refining capacity, it's not like petrol prices are going to go down much even if the cost of crude oil goes significantly down on the world oil market.


As for CO2, the significance of this I believe is heavily exxagerated by those who continue to have a rather biased perspective on the significance of CO2 emissions caused by humans. The fact is that nature is the biggest emitter of CO2 and not man. Car emissions in a 1998 study I read only composed around 2% of all CO2 emissions in the world.
Have you studied this stuff? Or are you just repeating what somebody told you? I've read studies that contradict everything you said about the oil industry.

The CO2 thing, you are just wrong about. I've heard this argument a million times from a million uninformed people, and I'll bet I can guess where this information came from. (a certain talk show radio host likes to spread disinformation and lies regarding the scientific validity of climate change, and this is his primary argument)

What are you trying to say anyway? That thousands of scientists are WRONG about the fact that we are making catastrophic climate change by added to greenhouse gases? Do you understand the greenhouse effect, and how/why our planet stays between certain temperatures? And that you BELIEVE that humans contributions are irrelevant? Based on what data? Have you actually seen data from these studies? Have you actually exposed yourself to any scientific studies, or do you just blindly accept what right wing propaganda spewers tell you? The only people who disagree with global warming are people with financial interests that depend on their polluting excessively. (and people who listen to the politicians who are bankrolled by the aforementioned individuals) Do you know anything about weather and ocean currents, and the effect temperature has on them? Do you know anything about glaciers? How they freeze, melt, and re-freeze, and how small amounts of water around them can affect them?

Do you know anything about this topic at all? Or are you just siding with the convenient solution because you choose not to lift a finger to learn anything?

Last edited by Ntruder; 07-24-2007 at 02:21 PM..
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 02:35 PM   #272  
F91
Plasmatic
 
F91's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 2,624
Default

He does this, a lot.

Here's a counterpoint to the corporate profit margin spin-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGF9OID9N1.DTL

Last edited by F91; 07-24-2007 at 02:42 PM..
F91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 04:23 PM   #273  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

Thank you, I was meaning to post something like that.

I read that average national profits (5 years ago) from turning a barrel of oil into fuel was about $5.50. Now its about $23.50
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 04:44 PM   #274  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Actually, i've read a lot of this information from primary source articles as it is in my field of interest. There are a rather lot of misinformation and myths out there. I am a fiscal conservative studying to be an Economist who believes in solutions that are economically responsible to all parties. I have my beliefs, as you surely have yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntruder View Post
Have you studied this stuff? Or are you just repeating what somebody told you? I've read studies that contradict everything you said about the oil industry.

The CO2 thing, you are just wrong about. I've heard this argument a million times from a million uninformed people, and I'll bet I can guess where this information came from. (a certain talk show radio host likes to spread disinformation and lies regarding the scientific validity of climate change, and this is his primary argument)

What are you trying to say anyway? That thousands of scientists are WRONG about the fact that we are making catastrophic climate change by added to greenhouse gases?
No, only that many of these scientists are taking data and believing what they want to believe or with what happens to fulfill their agenda. Global Warming is a serious buisness as people like Al Gore have found out.

Do you understand the greenhouse effect, and how/why our planet stays between certain temperatures?
Yes, I do understand how greenhouse gases work. I used to be interested in Meteorology until I came to the realistic conclusion that this is a field that will likely not make you much money. I also was not asleep in my science classes

And that you BELIEVE that humans contributions are irrelevant?

Did I mention that human contributions are irrelevant? I am sure that I didn't as I believe I stated that we may be powerless to do anything about it. My official stance is that global warming is a natural phenomenom that will occur and has occurred even before humans stepped on the planet. My belief is that our contributions are that we are accelerating this process that is already occurring due to our emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 as well as other sources such as methane

Based on what data?

Many other scientists have also concluded that global warming has been cyclical in nature, which has been found from the study of ice cores. If this is a cyclical process that has occurred even before humans have stepped onto the planet, then why is this something we have caused ourselves? Have we accelerated the process? yes I believe we have. It is partially from this research that has led to the theory that continued global climate shifts may actually send us into a new ice age.

Have you actually seen data from these studies?

Yes, I used to subscribe to a few magazines and used to read journals back before I started getting into home a/v and cars as a hobby. I have unlimited access to all the journals to my hearts content since our school has a online subscription to them all. I have read different theories and have chosen the one I have expressed as it most aligns with my personal and political views. Weather also used to be one of my big interests until it got me into a lot of trouble when I did something stupid chasing a supercell thunderstorm.

Have you actually exposed yourself to any scientific studies, or do you just blindly accept what right wing propaganda spewers tell you?

Interesting that you label me as right wing based on my views. Back when my interests were in weather, I was registered as a democrat and eventually became a republican, and am now a psuedo-neo-libertarian. I am very right wing in my beliefs, so I am going to put more weight behind arguments and theories that coincide with my personal beliefs. I do not claim to be without bias as I am only human. I used to be a former engineering student before I changed and decided I wanted to become a economist with a background in chemistry(3 years).


The only people who disagree with global warming are people with financial interests that depend on their polluting excessively. (and people who listen to the politicians who are bankrolled by the aforementioned individuals) Do you know anything about weather and ocean currents, and the effect temperature has on them?

Yes, I understand how the oceanic conveyor belt works in regulating the temperature of our climate. I understand that this is partially due to the differential in the salinity of the water which is being disturbed by the excess fresh water that is diluting our ocean from the warmer climatic shfit. This is for the same reason why the weather along the west coast is so darn pleasant, especially in Washington and Oregon before you reach the Cascade mountain range. Don't get me wrong as I am a fiscal conservative who will be an economist very shortly, and my motivations and desires will be different. I am a firm believer that we cannot discount the type of impact reckless legislation would have on the economy of our world when making these decisions that would be fiscally disastrous like the Kyoto Treaty. I believe that we can reach a more fiscally responsible solution that is also environmentally responsible. After all, we live in a country that has some of the most strict environmental regulations in the world.

Do you know anything about glaciers? How they freeze, melt, and re-freeze, and how small amounts of water around them can affect them?

Yes, and I understand how big of a effect they can have on our climate as well. Glaciers happen to be very reflective and reflect a lot of our sun's rays back that would normally be absorbed. I understand that they are disappearing at a rather alarming rate as Kilimajaro will have no glaciers in the next 13 years.

Do you know anything about this topic at all? Or are you just siding with the convenient solution because you choose not to lift a finger to learn anything?
My responses are in red to your questions. I have weighed a lot of the details and have came to the conclusion I have based on my beliefs. Nobody tells me how to think as I think for myself. If it coincides with others, then it is only because I may happen to mutally share certain beliefs with the person my views might coincide with. I believe that CO2 emissions might be the least of our worries when you CANNOT pinpoint global warming on CO2 emissions alone as that is only one variable in a bucket of MANY variables. I personally believe that rapid deforestation of our planet could be a much bigger contributor to global warming that CO2 emissions. Global warming happened cyclically before humans walked the planet, so there much be many other factors and variables other than just CO2 emissions. The biggest source of CO2 emissions are natural and especially from volcanic sources. Maybe we can offer mother nature a white chocolate macedemia nut cookie(my personal favorite) and kindly ask her to quit farting. Look at the alarming rate our forests are disappearing, and we of course know that they absorb a significant amount of CO2 and produce lots of oxygen to the point that the seasonal rises and drops in oxygen have been attributed to the seasonal forests in our world. Then of course we are also changing our terrain through abuse and neglect for the worse. I get irritated when people talk like CO2 is the puzzle that answers our question about global warming, because it is only one variable in a stew of likely an unfathomable number of variables that affect climate.

Let me stop using red now, but I believe that climatic shifts may be destructive, but humans will learn to cope and change as requried. If some dumb crocodile that likely reacts by responding to stimuli instead of thinking can outlive dinosaurs, then there is hope yet for the human race. If you have more questions about my beliefs, go ahead and ask away as I don't mind when people challenge me as I see it as a learning experience. I only mind when someone does it because they want to be mean spirited because they flat out don't like me. Interacting on this forum I believe has greatly improved my ability to write academic papers and reason logically.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 04:49 PM   #275  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Examples please. Explain how I do this a lot, because last I checked you don't like me or my political views. Don't be mad at me for you getting banned along with that son of yours a while ago, because I will swear to you that I didn't narc or pull any of that crap on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by F91 View Post
He does this, a lot.

Here's a counterpoint to the corporate profit margin spin-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGF9OID9N1.DTL
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 04:55 PM   #276  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntruder View Post
Thank you, I was meaning to post something like that.

I read that average national profits (5 years ago) from turning a barrel of oil into fuel was about $5.50. Now its about $23.50
I'll respond to that article when I have a little more time. For now, I have a paper to type up. Basically that article can be explained using some basic to intermediate Microeconomic principles. That article is also VERY specific to California which poses a few different economic questions compared to the petrol industry for regions other than California. To just quickly summarize it, it boils down to the fact that Cali's reformulated gasoline is special in that refineries that choose to make blends of petrol sold only outside California cannot just simply retool in time if demand for California RPG spikes in the short run. Non Cali-RPG is not allowed to be sold in Cali, which is what poses this problem they have and why they have such incredible fuel prices.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 05:00 PM   #277  
F91
Plasmatic
 
F91's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 2,624
Default

I'm getting an "awesome People" vibe from junehan.
F91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 05:23 PM   #278  
Administrator
 
rbinck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 17,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F91 View Post
He does this, a lot.

Here's a counterpoint to the corporate profit margin spin-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGF9OID9N1.DTL
The problem with that article is it is concerning the profit on the cost of oil. The refiners (oil companies like ExxonMobil) is not making that money, the producers (read Saudi, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, etc.) is who is making that money. As was stated before, the profit margin for ExxonMobil (XOM) is far below industry averages. From this article in USA Today: ExxonMobil's quarterly profit: $8.4 billion
Quote:
Most of Exxon's first-quarter earnings were from oil and natural gas, not from selling gasoline.

And Exxon's profit margins are below-average compared with others that have triggered no outcry. Exxon's first-quarter profit margin was 9.4%, meaning it kept 9.4 cents of every $1 in revenue. Microsoft kept 27.3 cents of every $1 in revenue in its most recent quarter; General Electric, 11.4 cents and McDonald's, 12.3 cents. In fact, Exxon is below the 11-cent average of Standard & Poor's 500 companies, says analyst Howard Silverblatt.
So even they don't make the big money from oil. That is the producers as stated. The taxes on the finished product run far more that the XOM profits, btw.

I picked this article from back in the 1st qtr of 2006 because that was when the big fuss over the oil companies gouging us when XOM hit the first record profit figure. My opinion is the taxes are a much bigger gouge. Nothing of substance has changed since then except they are selling more which keeps the record profits in terms of dollars going up. In terms of margin the oil companies are still at the bottom of US industries.

Last edited by rbinck; 07-24-2007 at 05:26 PM..
rbinck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 05:26 PM   #279  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F91 View Post
I'm getting an "awesome People" vibe from junehan.
Awesome People vibe? I am not sure what that means although I assure you can I am not awesome as i'm just a simple human being on a mission to make money and live comfortably in life. I have faced many detours in this mission, but am confident that things have stabalized in my personal life.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 05:39 PM   #280  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

thank You as you have saved me some time as I didn't know exactly where to go to find those numbers. These are the numbers and both sides of the argument can spin them but numbers like this don't lie.
You simply can't take an example from California either, and extrapolate it and say that this is how it is in the rest of the country as they are rather difference in how things work economically. I'll deal with the economics behind that at some point if I have some time as I believe I already owe people an explanation in another thread about some article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbinck View Post
The problem with that article is it is concerning the profit on the cost of oil. The refiners (oil companies like ExxonMobil) is not making that money, the producers (read Saudi, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, etc.) is who is making that money. As was stated before, the profit margin for ExxonMobil (XOM) is far below industry averages. From this article in USA Today: ExxonMobil's quarterly profit: $8.4 billion
So even they don't make the big money from oil. That is the producers as stated. The taxes on the finished product run far more that the XOM profits, btw.

I picked this article from back in the 1st qtr of 2006 because that was when the big fuss over the oil companies gouging us when XOM hit the first record profit figure. My opinion is the taxes are a much bigger gouge. Nothing of substance has changed since then except they are selling more which keeps the record profits in terms of dollars going up. In terms of margin the oil companies are still at the bottom of US industries.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 05:54 PM   #281  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barrington, Il.
Age: 67
Posts: 2,324
Default

Quote:
all you have to do is switch pulleys and gain another .5 - .7 seconds in the 1/4 mile.
, done !
Emil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 06:13 PM   #282  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default Reducing demand is easier than increasing supply......

There’s an anti-collectivist, independent streak in Americans that is hard to change. Other than the people who live in large cities with well-developed public transportation, most Americans don’t use public transport. Our cities don’t go up, they go out. The big city I have the most experience with as an adult is Dallas-Fort Worth, specifically Dallas. It’s a massive city that keeps growing farther and farther north along I-35 and US-75. “Affordable” housing means “was a farmer’s field last year” and “is miles from where you work and shop”.

As a result, people spend a lot of time in their cars, along with other people in their cars, on ever more congested roads. I hate driving in Dallas, there really never is a “slow” period in the traffic there. There are just some hours that are less awful than others, and it’s gotten worse over the last 20 years.

Infrastructrually we’re set up to be consumers. We’re still building cities and suburbs like gas is $1.25 a gallon and people can easily get around town. Tempermentally, we’re independent and want to go where we go when we want, so we have a lot of cars on the road at a given time. Neither of these things is going to change any time soon.

It seems to me the easier solution is to not mess with the independence but mitigate the effects of the independence, and try to use the drive to independence to get people to different things. Drive where you want — in a low-emission diesel or a hybrid, or using a biofuel. Burn less gas and give "Big Oil" a tiny ulcer every time you drive past a gas station. The electrical grid is collectivist, so get yourself a solar PV or hot water system and revel in your independence. Telecommute a day or two a week if you can, make that fiber-to-the-home connection pay off.

The infrastructure issue is a bit thornier issue, some people want to mow their own lawn. I personally have tried this and I fail to see the attraction, but there are a lot of single-family dwellings in circulation. Plant a condo development with a built-in sports facility and play area, solar and wind power for electricity reduction (and backup if the grid goes down), T3 connection and good adjacent school beside Whole Earth Foods and the George H. W. Bush Parkway in North Dallas and I imagine you’d get some takers, and make a profit in the process.

The trick is to make an apparent bug a feature. The willingness of Americans to mess with authority is legendary and a number of our innovations are due to outside the box thinking. As much as we Americans enjoy nature, we enjoy mastering it more. We see a canyon and think, “Wow, this is beautiful! We’ll put the dam over there.”

It’s all in how you present it — if you call solar “saving the environment” you’ll get a few takers. If you call it “energy independence”, you’re tapping into an archetype rather than trying to change one.I'm sleepy now.......end of my
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 06:36 PM   #283  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default I'm back....

Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?........
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 06:46 PM   #284  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default

rbinck
Super Moderator......once again your previous post is...spot on.
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 06:57 PM   #285  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
Actually, i've read a lot of this information from primary source articles as it is in my field of interest. There are a rather lot of misinformation and myths out there. I am a fiscal conservative studying to be an Economist who believes in solutions that are economically responsible to all parties. I have my beliefs, as you surely have yours.



My responses are in red to your questions. I have weighed a lot of the details and have came to the conclusion I have based on my beliefs. Nobody tells me how to think as I think for myself. If it coincides with others, then it is only because I may happen to mutally share certain beliefs with the person my views might coincide with. I believe that CO2 emissions might be the least of our worries when you CANNOT pinpoint global warming on CO2 emissions alone as that is only one variable in a bucket of MANY variables. I personally believe that rapid deforestation of our planet could be a much bigger contributor to global warming that CO2 emissions. Global warming happened cyclically before humans walked the planet, so there much be many other factors and variables other than just CO2 emissions. The biggest source of CO2 emissions are natural and especially from volcanic sources. Maybe we can offer mother nature a white chocolate macedemia nut cookie(my personal favorite) and kindly ask her to quit farting. Look at the alarming rate our forests are disappearing, and we of course know that they absorb a significant amount of CO2 and produce lots of oxygen to the point that the seasonal rises and drops in oxygen have been attributed to the seasonal forests in our world. Then of course we are also changing our terrain through abuse and neglect for the worse. I get irritated when people talk like CO2 is the puzzle that answers our question about global warming, because it is only one variable in a stew of likely an unfathomable number of variables that affect climate.

First, let me remind you that scientists, for the most part, objectively study the physical universe. They do not subjectively study it. Despite many right wing talker's claims, I just don't understand this. The scientific community is interested only in the truth, they don't have an agenda. (there are specific examples where this is false, but this holds true for the vast majority of scientific institutions)

Second, I was waiting for the "volcano" argument, Limbaugh's favorite. I'm calling you out here: You haven't done your homework. (Its not your fault. This argument originated from a right wing talking point, and everyone uses it. I know you didn't come up with this volcano theory yourself)

Let me give you the rundown on volcanoes and global warming:

First, some fact correcting: "The biggest source of CO2 emissions are natural and especially from volcanic sources." You are implying that Volcanoes have more of an impact on global warming than we do by way of their CO2 emissions. False. Current CO2 emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes have been estimated at 4 x 10^12 moles/year. Man made CO2 emissions are at least 150 times this estimate.

Second, Volcanos have a net cooling effect. This information is out there, you just have to do objective research. I'll tell you how this works too. Volcanoes emit sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it is converted into sulferic acid aerosols. These aerosols reflect radiation, both solar and infrared. But there is a net loss of energy by this process, between 5-10% reduction in energy. The largest eruption in the past 100 years, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, resulted in a .5 degree C net decrease in surface temperature over the next year or two.

Maybe you'll make the Chlorine argument, that volcanoes spew more chlorine into the atmosphere than we do, and they eat away at the ozone layer, not us. Wrong. Natural chlorine, like the chlorine produced from volcanoes, is water soluble, and it gets rained out before ever reaching the stratosphere. Chloroflorocarbons, or CFC's, that we produce, are INsoluble, and they make it all the way to the stratosphere to dump their chlorine. Furthermore, chlorine found in the stratosphere is ALWAYS accompanied by other remnants of CFC's, and NOT of natural chlorine. Its us, not the volcanoes.

You brought up CO2, not me. Its a combination of a lot of different things. There are many causes to these climate changes, and there are many solutions.

Quote:
Let me stop using red now, but I believe that climatic shifts may be destructive, but humans will learn to cope and change as requried. If some dumb crocodile that likely reacts by responding to stimuli instead of thinking can outlive dinosaurs, then there is hope yet for the human race. If you have more questions about my beliefs, go ahead and ask away as I don't mind when people challenge me as I see it as a learning experience. I only mind when someone does it because they want to be mean spirited because they flat out don't like me. Interacting on this forum I believe has greatly improved my ability to write academic papers and reason logically.
Your reasoning here is flawed. First, it is completely irrational and unreasonable to say that we should "cope" instead of making some simple legislative and lifestyle changes. Do you live near a coast? Because there are sections of glaciers threatening to drop into the ocean that would flood enough land to leave hundreds of millions of people as refugees. You think we should just "cope" with hundreds of millions of refugees instead of using paper bags at the grocery store? Think about your logic here. We can fix this. If you care about our planet, and you get one other person to care about it, then they will get one person to care about it, and sooner or later, everyone cares about it. This isn't a right wing or left wing issue. This is something that everyone should care about. Why? Because if enough people care, then we don't have to lift a finger: the government or (according to libertarian economics) the free market will set standards that will decrease our emission levels to the point where they are not affecting our planet. But when people continually spread this disinformation, the problem only gets worse. Why not fix it before it is a terrible problem?

Quote from Thom Hartmann's book: "Here's a bit of wisdom on which "left" and "right" can easily agree: If you let things go, you'll have to pay for it eventually; and the longer you don't deal with it, the more you'll have to pay. Wait long enough, and you'll pay dearly - when you could have done the right thing all along and at little cost."

Think about that. You seem like a reasonable person, albeit, slightly misdirected on some issues. Its funny you mention that you're studying fiscal conservativism and economics. I started my collegiate career studying economics from a conservative standpoint. I was all for it, until I realized the disaster that is the unregulated free market. (Putting profit before people) The more I learn, the more liberal I become on most all areas, economics especially. These same libertarian free market flaws are the reason why this global warming issue has gone this far. Businesses are allowed to put profits before people (and our planet) and they have no interests in preserving either. A business has one interest: profit. The Libertarians will tell you that if people want greener products, the free market will deliver it. But we have a system that is so deeply intertwined with each other, the fact that businesses have a political voice, blocks the truth from ever hitting the consumer! So how can a free market work if we have incomplete consumer information?! If businesses had no legal rights as an individual, and could not play any role in politics, then we would have less corrupt politicians who vote the way their funders want them to, and we would have less disinformation about important subjects. I agree that a free market can work in many cases, but not ours, not now.

The above rant explains exactly how this global warming crisis got where it is today. Businesses don't want to change to greener methods, because change costs money. Businesses get politicians elected by campaign contributions, television ads, radio ads, etc, under the condition that they don't impose legislation that makes the business change. The politician needs to have the support of his constituents, so he publicly challenges global warming. Media supporters of this party defend the politician's stance on global warming, even though inaccurate and fraudulent. Then you have conservatives who don't believe in global warming, and liberals who do. And this all started because businesses don't have a conscience; they think "profit," not "people." Only when the people get complete information will the free market truly function in their interest.

Did you know that the scientific community is in almost 100% agreement on global warming? Only one scientific establishment does not agree, and that is the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists." Petroleum Geologists. I wonder where their funding comes from?

Last edited by Ntruder; 07-24-2007 at 07:08 PM..
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LCD TV Monitor Panel Prices on the Rise eHDMI High Definition News & Informative Articles 1 08-24-2006 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands