Print 212 comment(s) - last by bonerici.. on Mar 19 at 4:29 PM

A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars

A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well.  "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.  The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".  Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is  an extremely good fit with observational results.  For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 5
"200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Of course....because no long standing theory has even needed to be changed.

RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 1
We didn't even know there was a speed limit 200 years ago O_o

RE: Theory changes....
By rcc on 3/6/2008 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
oops, I think the theory less than a hundred years ago was if you managed to get up to 60-70 mph it would do drastic things to your body. I'm going to have to look that up again.

RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 5:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
So it changed more than once (assuming what you're saying is true).

RE: Theory changes....
By erikejw on 3/7/2008 2:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah sure, and in the OJ case they had scientists who beleived that DNA was impossible to use to identify someone.

There is always a contrary view but when 95% of scientists agrees of something that is what counts.

RE: Theory changes....
By AlexWade on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By Starcub on 3/8/2008 11:51:48 AM , Rating: 1
The article you linked to had this to say:

"A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions."

OK, so "only" 56% support for AGW, and you're using this to refute AGW?

Despite the spin, there is also nothing in the topic article that presents evidence against AGW. Some scientist developed a better mathematical model that more accurately predicts temps already determined from information extrapolated from the geologic record. We already knew that the earth had self correcting mechanisms in place; this guy just showed us that increased atmospheric energy radiation into space is a contribiting factor.

RE: Theory changes....
By ikkeman on 3/7/2008 11:32:11 AM , Rating: 3
a long time ago in a universe not so very far away -

100% of scientist knew the earth was flat.
100% of schientists knew the earth was the centre of this universe
100% of scientists knew god existed.

on of clarke's laws (I think)
If an elderly and distinguished scientists says something is impossible, he is nearly always wrong
When a young and enthousistic scientists says something is possible, he is nearly always right...

offcourse this has nothing to do with age

RE: Theory changes....
By OrSin on 3/17/2008 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
In the christian world yes. But Asia, africa and middle east all know this was completely wrong for 1000's of years before the Europeans. History is so funny when viewed from only 1 piont of view.

RE: Theory changes....
By RedStar on 3/17/2008 12:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
those, who supported those three claims above, were not scientists back then but religious types with an agenda to maintain.

Scientists equal those that use the scientific method.

RE: Theory changes....
By tjr508 on 3/6/2008 7:33:04 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention what happens at 88 mph.

RE: Theory changes....
By Scrogneugneu on 3/6/2008 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
Only depending on the type of car you're driving.

RE: Theory changes....
By dflynchimp on 3/6/2008 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
and if you're carrying plutonium or got a Mr. Fusion upgrade

RE: Theory changes....
By retepallen on 3/7/2008 4:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
or train

RE: Theory changes....
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/7/2008 11:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
The theory stated that you would no longer be able to breathe above 60 mph. There may have been something related to increasing mass equalling ten times stationary mass at 60 mph as well.

RE: Theory changes....
By sporr on 3/8/2008 8:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think if the conditions were that, you were propelled in a direction at a speed of 60mph or more, but not within say a car or a plane, lets say a catapult for the sake of this discussion, the atmospheric pressure would be too much onto your lungs that it would be very hard if not impossible to breath without assistance, like if you were to sky dive without respiratory gear.


RE: Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:22:41 PM , Rating: 2

Of course....because no long standing theory has EVER needed to be changed.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
You may have a point about old theories, but the fact is that more and more scientists are looking at global warming and realizing that we are not in any danger, the planet is fine.

We do need to work to reduce emissions and improve efficiency to reduce our dependency on oil for 3 reasons 1. Economic 2. Political 3. environmental (by that I am referring to us breathing the smog, not the planet getting too warm)... In that order

RE: Theory changes....
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, the old bait-and-switch routine again! Get people interested and motivated because of the impending "crisis" of AGW, and then when that is proved to not be a problem, state that we should do all that stuff anyway for these other not so compelling or urgent reasons.

I just can't imagine why the environmentalists have such a poor reputation... </sarcasm>

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:43:47 PM , Rating: 5

Not sure what you mean here... I am no environmantalist, nor have I ever thought global warming was an issue, and I live in Arizona, its hot as hell here already.

If you dont think we need to reduce our oil usage for economic, political and thirdly environmental reasons, you simply arent paying attention to the world you live in.

RE: Theory changes....
By TomZ on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:25:48 PM , Rating: 5
I totally disagree with you on the economy, and political reasons to reduce our dependancy on oil.

Economically, it is a current problem, not a future one. Not a full blown crisis, but a problem today that will get worse each year that goes by, unless of course we reduce our demand.

Politically, it is a huge mess. We are in a world of crap over the middle east, because they have the oil. Once we dont need it, we dont have to take any crap from any of them, let them duke it out amongst themselves... We need to be able to stay out of that region of the world.

RE: Theory changes....
By Chimpee on 3/6/2008 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
But economically speaking, it is still better for the country to import the oil since we currently don't have any cost competitive way to compete with oil.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 5
Absolutely... I am not at all suggesting that we stop. We need to reduce, and look into alternatives more aggresively. not to the point we hurt our economy, but help it with new energy sources and possibly new jobs created by those energy sources.

RE: Theory changes....
By SilthDraeth on 3/6/2008 4:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
What you say is good and all, except that most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal. Hydro isn't an option because there simply are not enough rivers to provide all the power.

Nuclear is the cleanest source, but you can't run nuclear powered vehicles... as awesome as that would be.

And don't forget plastics, a staple in our society, and an oil product.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
"most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal"

Agreed... thus the need for research and development. Its going to take time and money to create an affordable alternative. Its not just going to fall in our laps, like oil sort of did, it has to be invented.

RE: Theory changes....
By dever on 3/7/2008 1:53:05 PM , Rating: 1
I think the underlying, yet unstated, point of disagreement with what you are saying is the often presumed conclusion that the "need" for alternatives be solved by a few politicians who decide for the rest of society the best solution.

I don't know if you are suggesting that we develop these alternatives by forcibly confiscating individual's income and redistributing it to large alternative power lobbyists, but it seems to be the most common proposal.

The best alternative, of course, is individual freedom to react to market pressures of decreased oil supply and vote with their wallets as to the best solution.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ajax9000 on 3/6/2008 8:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget plastics, a staple in our society, and an oil product.

And if we burn all the oil in cars and powerstations the plastics industry will be in deep sh!t ...

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not all plastics are made from oil and many plastics are recyclabe. Ionic solvents are also a promising field as it will allow breaking down and recycling plastic that is currently not recyclable.

RE: Theory changes....
By Fanon on 3/7/2008 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
We're not even close to depleting the oil supply in the USA, much less the world. Raw supply isn't a problem.

The problem is politics. In the USA, it's congress that prevents us from expanding our oil production. The cost of oil, and thus gasoline and other oil-based products, would be extremely lower if:

1. We were allowed to explore and drill predicted oil rich locations.
2. Build more refineries.

I guarantee you if we could do those two things, the economic impact oil has had over the past years would be gone.

RE: Theory changes....
By ksuWildcat on 3/7/2008 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
We're not even close to depleting the oil supply in the USA, much less the world. Raw supply isn't a problem.

Agreed, although I'd like to see us transition to a clean, renewable energy source before we do run out of oil, or we get to the point where driving becomes completely cost-prohibitive. This would be better for the U.S., economically, politically, and environmentally.

You can also blame the oil companies to a certain extent for our troubles. They tend not to reinvest in their current infrastructure, and they have little incentive to refine more oil/gas. Their profits soar when they get oil for $70-80/barrel, then refine it, and sell it to us for $3/gallon. For example, several of the big oil companies are getting heavier crude cheap right now, then making diesel, and ripping consumers off in the process.

RE: Theory changes....
By rebturtle on 3/6/2008 9:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
...except that most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal...

If we spend every day looking at what the cheapest solution is for us right now, the alternatives will be much more expensive to implement when we are short on time. Remember that, despite what reserves you can find or purchase, fossil fuels are non-renewable. There is a finite amount. Just because we may not see the end of that amount in our lifetime doesn't mean we should happily burn as much as we like now because it is relatively cheap.

There aren't any cheap alternatives when it comes to replacing infrastructure. Renewable energy uses considerable material and labor resources, and even has aesthetic tradeoffs. Nuclear has significant costs in the forms of mining, construction, and water consumption. Oil binds us to global politics in which we spend additional billions coercing/befriending governments, military actions, and are stuck being dependent upon a small minority of companies/countries dictating the perceived value of a product we cannot operate normally without.

Not everyone in the US gets their energy from fossil fuels, but as a nation we are still bound to the consequences. This is a collaborative effort, and a long term investment in our future.

RE: Theory changes....
By biohazard420420 on 3/7/2008 1:11:42 AM , Rating: 4
I have to disagree with you about the reason for the war in the middle east being about oil, you didn't say that specifically but implyed it. We import most of our oil form places other than the middle east such as canada and mexico among others. The problem is that we have OPEC that can control the price of oil worldwide because of speculators (the so called record prices you hear about) There are a myriad of other reasons why we have a war in the middle east but oil is not one of them. We have ways od decreasing our reliance on foreign oil but and this is a huge but to you environmentalists we MUST drill for oil here, off shore in ANWR oil shale deposits etc.

I am all for alternative sources of power, but at the moment they are cost prohibitive. Oil will one day run out that much we do know but we have a few countries in the middle east dictating what the entire world pays for oil which is mainly europe and asia etc. The small amout of oil we get from the middle east around 10 to 20 percent is tiny compared to how much we get from canada and mexico. Just think of it this way if we buy 1 barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia that oil goes on a huge ship that travels across the ocean it will take a few weeks to a month for that to even get to the US compared to a few days at best from canada or mexico. The middle east has to much control over the global price of oil in general but it is not the cause of high gas prices here, you can blame people betting on the FUTURE price of oil for that as well as those environmentalists who insist we switch between 10 to 17 different gas blends across the country.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By dluther on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 11:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
That's not even close to being true:"

I think your chart is correct, based on where the oil comes from... But much of it is brokered through a Canada company, this is why its always a confusing point, and people say Canada is our biggest supplier of oil. Brokered or not, the vast majority comes from the middle east.

RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 on 3/7/2008 11:28:11 AM , Rating: 3
> "That's not even close to being true:"

Did you misread your own link? It clearly states imports total 398 Mbbl, of which only 69 Mbbl comes from Persian Gulf nations.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
What of it? There is more to "the middle east" than just the persian gulf... Look at the Opec countries 189mbbl mostly from the middle east.

Whatever though. Its not entirely relevant to the main point here, which is we do need to conserve, and use less oil in a financially responsible manor

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 on 3/7/2008 9:22:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Look at the Opec countries 189mbbl mostly from the Middle east."

Again, you're misreading. Among OPEC nations, #2 is Venezuela, #3 is Nigeria, #4 is Algeria and #5 Angola. None of those are in the Middle East.

A lot of people equate "OPEC" with "The Middle East". But they are not synonymous, and the US does *not* import anywhere near a majority of its oil from the Middle East.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By rcc on 3/7/2008 1:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting way to list data. Confusing tho, for instance, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. are listed twice, once as Persian Gulf, and once as OPEC. While some are cited as having moved in or out of OPEC, those aren't among them.

RE: Theory changes....
By Hawkido on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By ObiWanCeleri on 3/16/2008 12:27:44 AM , Rating: 5
Socialism works great in Canada, Finland and a whole bunch of other countries. Live with it.

By the way, look at Argentina - in the 80's it dismantled it's national petroleum infrastructures and privatized the rest ... the country crashed so badly it nearly went the way of third world countries. It still is in dire straights.

However look at Venezuela. It's emerging as one of the strongest countries in South America because it's nationalized it's petroleum industry. Get the picture?

The idea is that the state is often a better administrator than private enterprise. Just look at Enron, WorldCom, KBR, Haliburton & the lot. They are the best example that not all that glitters is gold.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/6/2008 9:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Rising oil prices is driving a small bit of inflation

Rising prices of commodities like oil are not the cause of inflation, they are a symptom of it.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's a definition game; you're thinking of expanding money supply, and possibly waiting to bring up the gold standard again. I'd instead say that since core inflation is so low, and wage-push inflation isn't showing up, that commodity prices seem to be a mixture of astounding global demand growth and a weak dollar due to lower bond yields versus the ECB's policy rates.

On a related note, I've cogitated on it since you last brought it up and asher supported bimetalism, but how does it stop the money supply from increasing? As long as there is fractional reserve banking then you have dollars replicating themselves through the system, and fractional reserve banking is the one of the pillars of the current financial system. I'm struggling to see the practicality, or how it could implemented (without causing chaos).

RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 9:41:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "but how does it stop the money supply from increasing? "

It doesn't stop the supply from expanding, it stops it from expanding arbitrarily. It forces the government to play by the same rules as everyone else -- you can't spend what you don't earn (tax).

With fiat money, a government can coin as much as it wants-- and every new dollar it prints makes all the rest worth a little bit less. It's a hidden tax...and when a government goes too far, it results in hyperinflation.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 12:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think a better way of explaining it(if u don't mind) is to think of money as the physical representation of the goods that an economy produces.
If you print more money it does not change the amount of goods you have produced just the amount of dollars per good, hence inflation.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/7/2008 7:54:56 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Too many dollars chasing a finite amounts of goods is inflation. If the fed were to print million dollar bills for every American, would we all become rich? No, because it's money from nothing. It's a giant pyramid scheme. The people who get and use the bills first will not feel the devaluation effects of the unused dollars that have yet to enter circulation, but the more of them that are spent and enter circulation, the faster sellers of products must raise their prices to account for how much more common they now are. The people who spend it last will have a practically useless piece of paper. Foreign U.S. stock and bond holders around the world would get owned overnight. Scarcity of money is what retains its value relative to other goods. Paper can be manipulated until eventual destruction. Gold can't. History is not on the side of fiat because governments can't restrain themselves from the conveniences allowed to them by this system.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
My other response covers most my objections, but I'd like to ask when the last time the American or a Western European nation printed money to fund their expenses versus selling bonds on the open market. WW2 I know was funded by bonds, bonds, bonds and more bonds, even paying some military men in bonds instead of cash. I don't know off hand of WW1, but I know the Union didn't print much as a percentage of the money used to fund the war -- but the CSA let its printing presses run absolutely wild, with predictable effects. Atlanta looked like Zimbabwe before Grant burned it.

Europeans are such inflation zealots I doubt any of the Western states have played that game in the last several decades either.

RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 on 3/7/2008 12:17:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "when the last time the American or a Western European nation printed money to fund their expenses "

I know you limited the question, but China, Germany, Greece, and many other nations printed money to fund the war effort in WW2...China continued up to around 1949. Germany's worst period wasn't even during a war -- it was in the period between WWI and II. In fact, the hyperinflation caused by its running the presses is one of the major factors would brought Hitler to power.

Right after the war, Hungary printed so much money that inflation hit 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent per year. (no, I didn't add too many zeros).

Somewhat more recently, Brazil and Argentina both ran the printing presses full tilt during the early 1990s, in some cases resulting in inflation of several million percent per year.

Has the US been more restrained? Of course. But just because a problem is smaller in scale doesn't mean it still doesn't exist.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
There is nothing wrong with Fiat with strict inflation control policies and allowing and helping the market work. The problem is people always get cranky when quite high inflation sets in with a particular commodity. People need to realise that is exactly how the system is suppose to work. The price should rise to reflect its scarcity and encourage the development of alternaitves.
Moving to the gold standard will change none of this, nor make the system work magically better.

Anything you choose to represent value is fiat, even gold. The only reason gold is so valuable is because ppl see it as being a safe haven for wealth ie fiat, that gold is not REALLY needed.

Encouraging the unecessary mining of a mineral just to pay people to sit around and guard enormous vaults of it for me makes no economic, enviromental or practical sense.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/8/2008 4:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with Fiat with strict inflation control policies and allowing and helping the market work.

Keynsian nonsense. The fed is the SOURCE of almost all inflation. You are justifying their existence and intervention based on problems that they themselves create. The market doesn't need a government to work or prosper. Do some research. Expecting politicians and international banking interests to manipulate the market in the best interest of the people is pure socialist idealistic nonsense and has historically achieved nothing short of the opposite. Or maybe the great depression and the collapse of the soviet union were just figments of people's imagination.

Anything you choose to represent value is fiat, even gold. The only reason gold is so valuable is because ppl see it as being a safe haven for wealth ie fiat, that gold is not REALLY needed.

But, of course, this is untrue. In modern civilization, people need a common means of exchange. It is by no arbitrary choice that, throughout history, gold has served this role rather than cucumbers. Gold is resilient but malleable, it requires no upkeep, and a small amount of it can represent a great deal of value relative to other goods, making it easy to carry and store. It is scarce in the world and must be mined, making it impossible to debase its value significantly by manufacturing too much of it. Paper needs a government decree to achieve high value to weight ratios. Gold does not. Because of these attributes, inherent to gold rather than authoritatively declared of it by a government or agency, people have gravitated towards gold as the most effective means of storing their wealth and transacting exchange, and it retains its attributes and value regardless of what the government chooses to monetize. Fiat is something intrinsically worthless declared valuable by authoritative command. Thus, gold is NOT fiat.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 3:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
The concept that gold is fiat I think could've better been stated as the value of gold is fiat.

If you're serious with yourself, you'll realize that almost no one expects current gold prices to remain anywhere near where they are today. The price of it has gone parabolic, and investment advisors and the like are reporting on CNBC that everybody and their dog is calling in saying "Get me in to some gold." Just like a thunderstorm, this is the final huge upsurge of energy, pushing the price in to the stratosphere before it ultimately pours down.

Gold could easily be half of what it is now in a few years. Gold compared to the S&P500 has not been a very decent investment over the long haul -- very little, in fact, matches the S&P500.

Given that the current price represents not inflation (if there was real inflation in the economy, it would manifest itself more widely) but a speculative bubble, what would a commodity-backed currency do when the value belly-flopped? Suddenly a cheeseburger would cost twice the ounces of gold as it did a week ago? Madness. I don't see how one keeps the two tied to each other in value, or does a central bank 'defend' the price of gold, buying and selling to maintain a predetermined price so prices at the shelves dont change to reflect day-to-day speculative movements in the spot price? That stars to resemble the open market transactions used by the Fed BoNY to keep the short end of the yield curve in line...

I dislike Keynes as much as the next guy, he gave decades of young socialists someone to idolize, but I don't see a complicated return to a gold standard as the panacea to all the worlds problems.

By the way, interesting aside, but the man that was a staunch supporter of "sound money" happens to be the one that handed us this housing asset price bubble -- Greenspan. Not that I blame him, at least now we've experimented on ourselves and know what extremely low rates result in even though it should be no surprise, but just pointing it out.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/9/2008 7:28:43 PM , Rating: 1
In the late 19th century, America was on a gold standard and had no federal reserve. We have never replicated that rate of growth to the economy. The fear of "spot price" fluctuations, I think, are exaggerated, due to your having lived in this system and being fixated on its market behavior. In this system you have both supply/demand and the currency in which it is priced (inflation) adding to its volatility. If gold IS the currency, how could inflation reach 10% based on the inability to manufacture it, and how could its value be debased to nothing like paper since it was never intrinsically worthless to begin with? Fiat defenders always resort to how much more "elastic" a fiat system is, and how we somehow "need" it to solve, you guessed it, problems that it tends to create.

Defenders of fiat always resort to "gold is a commodity, commodities are speculative" and "when reasonably managed, fiat currencies have done well enough." Note the utopian conditional statement characteristic of socialist thought. There is no perfect system. Just like gun ownership and gun prohibition both result in violence, the question then becomes which results in the least, and it is and statistically and explicably the former. So in pointing out gold's natural drawbacks, fiat supporters lead themselves to believe that gold is as bad or more idealistic than fiat, and it just isn't a fair assessment. Free market pricing is better than government or bank-managed pricing. Let the vipers try and dick with the market under a gold standard with no central bank. They never had anywhere near the gain or influence as they did when a central bank didn't exist and the government was small and of ill importance. We went from having a 10% savings rate to one which is negative. We went from being able to raise seven kids on a carpenter's income to needing two incomes to afford one. I don't see how how you can say that this monetary system of interest rate manipulation, inflationary bank bailouts, and easy credit is preferable or sustainable to what we once had. Wrangle with government statistics and speculation fears all you want, all this system leads to is indebtedness and higher taxes to fund spendthrift socialists.

If you're serious with yourself, you'll realize that almost no one expects current gold prices to remain anywhere near where they are today.

It is politically inconvenient for a recession in an election year, the people defending their seats will try and "fix" the problem with inflationary stimulus packages. Helicopter Ben is no Volcker. He will not raise interest rates and he is currently trying to re-inflate the real estate bubble with bailouts to lenders. You can be sure that commodities will continue to rise for at least two more years in this bull market. But these major boom/bust cycles are indicative of a fiat system. We've, for whatever reason, accepted them as natural cycles in the economy, but they're nothing more than symptoms of free market manipulation.

RE: Theory changes....
By bfonnes on 3/12/2008 8:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the other day about this kind of stuff, and realized that... An asset is only an asset if there is someone that will buy it at some point... The value of gold can drop just as much as the value of a house if there is no one to buy it, i.e. too expensive, can't eat it, etc. The bottom line is you can't eat gold or petroleum, so, paper money that is managed properly will perpetually have some sort of worth as long as it is used as a valid means of exchange.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
I understood the effect it would have on the government printing presses (not that the federal government prints money anyway, they sell bonds, and the reserve buys or sells them to have the desired effect on liquidity and interest rates). I was referring to the process where you deposit a dollar in a fractional reserve banking system, and its in your account, supposedly liquid, and the bank holds .10c and loans out the other .90c. In the first step, the M1 has nearly doubled in my example, but the gold reserves backing up these nearly $2 stilly only amounts to $1.

Thus, 'arbitrary' expansion of M1 grinds on. The governments ability to print money is removed, though, sure. Again, the only way I can think to end that is to up reserve requirements to 100%, but that would dry up credit markets. Credit markets are a good thing; we have problems not because credit and bringing forward income is inherently not good but because people lack the education (or integrity) to use it responsibly.

It wouldn't even get rid of the Federal Reserve, would it? They could still be out there, buying down or selling up the short end of the yield curve. Nothing they do now is arbitrary, it's all done with open market transactions of teasuries and repurchase agreements.

I would think a gold standard currency would have a larger positive effect in countries with less government constraint then the US and the EU, where money is arbitrarily created from thin air by the government.

RE: Theory changes....
By gsellis on 3/7/2008 8:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
Rising oil prices are the cause of inflation. This is a commodity that has shocked the system and the economy has dependencies on it because of transportation and manufacturing needs. Oil's price change is effected by speculation and political influence which cannot be modeled. Same thing happened the last time and is what is the key ingredient in a stagflation scenario. Stagflation does not follow regular economic theory and it is because oil is not following any inflationary or deflationary models. It is changing outside of normal economic forces.

AND oil price is way off topic.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/8/2008 4:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
Definition of inflation: "a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency."

Oil rising in dollar denominated price because of decreased supply or increased demand is not inflation. That's called the marketplace working. Look at a long-term chart pricing oil in terms of gold, and you'll see that the price of oil hasn't risen at all when priced in a commodity like gold. Since both goods are equally afflicted by monetary inflation, you can measure them against each other and determine that you are wrong. And if the price of food goes up because of rising oil costs (a result of inflation), this is also ultimately a symptom of inflation.

It's a total brainwash to believe that the fed must step in and interfere with the marketplace. It doesn't make you any richer to print dollars that don't represent produced goods. It makes every dollar you hold worth less relative to other goods, including oil. If supply and demand makes gas go to $5, all the better, because then demand is created for alternative energy technologies and subsequently, the capitalistic incentive for companies to produce and research products using them.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 4:43:31 AM , Rating: 1
The price of food going up hasn't had anything to do with oil prices; it has had everything to do with crop failures and ethanol consuming food stocks.

As for everything else, with billions of people living in rapidly developing nations, you don't think that huge increases in demand might not have a little bit to do with it? I mean, China's only building entire cities from scratch.

If it were true inflation, then why has prices in the core CPI not shown anything exciting?

Also, the drop in the dollar relative to other currencies is easily explained by the fact that a) our stock market sucks and b) our treasury bond yields are lower than Europes, thus less attractive.

Removing food and energy, inflation from Jan 07 to Jan 08 was 2.5%. Strip out medical care, another secular demand-driven price inflation story and it'd look even better. If from Jan 08 to Jan 09 it looks more like 5%, then I'd agree with you; there could be too much money floating around. As it stands now, you're making a valid philosophical point but aren't able to stand on any hard data, not until the core CPI shifts in your favor.

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/9/2008 6:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
The price of food going up hasn't had anything to do with oil prices; it has had everything to do with crop failures and ethanol consuming food stocks.

Increases in transportation and manufacturing costs as a result of oil price are certainly carried on to the consumer.

If it were true inflation, then why has prices in the core CPI not shown anything exciting?

Countless people have ridiculed the government's CPI measurements as manipulative hogwash deliberately designed to understate real inflation and retain market confidence.

RE: Theory changes....
By ElFenix on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By Procurion on 3/6/2008 3:02:55 PM , Rating: 5
Not a Bush supporter, particularly, but if we're going to make humorous remarks let's make sure it is in the right context.

The reasons concerning the oil production and protecting our interests there can be included as motivation to put military force in the area. Consider that this isn't a new set of circumstances, there has been turmoil in the Middle East for many decades. The compelling reason for "going to war" is not necessarily as transparent as the rhetoric from people opposed to the events that have transpired would have you believe.

The compelling reason for the invasion and restructuring Iraq was to move terrorist activity ofF American soil. To remain passive and not send troops into the fray would have invited more attempts to kill Americans on our own soil. To wait and respond is to fight in your own yard. To take the initiative and move the fight into the original aggressors' back yard is to fight there. Our military has done an impressive job of making sure that the terrorists are so busy defending themselves that they cannot plan and execute terrorist attacks here. It is simple and incontrovertable. History shows this very clearly.

RE: Theory changes....
By Christopher1 on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By MozeeToby on 3/6/2008 4:37:27 PM , Rating: 4
I know (or atleast hope) that it wasn't your intention to blame religion for all violence, rape, murder, and racism throughout the world. Wars have been fought over a huge variety of reasons, religious jihad only one of them. The second largest terrorist attack in the US was the result of a simple hatred of the government (Oklahoma City).

You seem to think that religion is the root of all amoral and unethical behavior in the world; it isn't. At times, religion is taken advantage of to use as a rallying cry to this behavior, but the religion itself is almost never to blame.

For crying out loud, most of the things you advocate are the central pillars of the most common religions. Don't lust after power, don't take advantage of others, do help your fellow man. It's fine to be atheist, I'm not even sure how much I believe anymore, but there's no reason to blow things out of proportion.

RE: Theory changes....
By TheJian on 3/6/2008 9:42:46 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. You want to stop rape and murder? Or just crime in general? KILL the people committing rape and murder and do it on nightly news. Look at crime rates in countries where the punishment FITS the crime and the crime rate is through the floor instead of the roof. Sorry that peace and love BS and reform the prisoner crap doesn't work! We have such high crime today because even if you get caught you get 3 squares a day and free rent. OH and you get free gym equipment to work out on everyday too.

You may not like it but the death penalty used on TV would stop this stuff. ONLY the lunatics that TRULY do not know the difference between right and wrong would still kill/rape. If every rapist knew the first thing we did to them when caught is cut off their balls or light their dicks on fire with a blow torch how many do you think would still do it if sane and rational? It wouldn't take more than a week to see rape drop to 10% of normal today. If murders got their kneecaps blown off (then medically taken care of to sustain you for the next week), then a few arms shot off on TV next week until you finally die one week (yeah, I mean terrible deaths, more creative each week until you croak) would you even PONDER the idea of killing someone? Again assuming your sane. Murder would drop to 10% in a week. The only people left would be the complete nuts.

Sure you can make up some laws regarding it. Like "we only do this to you if your on camera committing the crime" etc. Unequivocally guilty that is. Or after a DNA sample your proven guilty of rape. Whatever, the point is people pay attention when the penalty sucks. Jail just isn't a deterrent today. It's free food and rent forever and no little to no work. I'm not even going to bother with your "get rid of religion and we save the world " BS. Those "more aggressors" as you call them already celebrated "death to america" day long before we got there. They were celebrating that day when I was in high school in '89. I think it dates back to '79 actually. Google it. I just did, i'm right. LOL. Were we in their back yard in '79?

You know why our military men are dying? Because pussies like you won't just let us blow them up. War is HELL! But people like you make it a gentle game of chess. We have to make sure we kill no innocent people (so bad guys just hide amongst them...great plan guy), or we can't blow up a mosque because it's not politically correct (so they hide in mosques...great plan guy). If you aren't willing to go the extra mile you can't get anything done. If we just flew into everywhere (stealth bombers with moab) that a terrorist was seen camping in arab nations and dropped MOAB's every single time, being a terrorist would become an unpopular idea indeed. Mosque or not. BOOM. No more hiding. You're going to die anyway. It would be the end for all but the completely stupid. Abu Graib? Deck of cards people we picked up. Kill them all. Nobody would want to be them. FEAR brings peace. PERIOD. We have terrorists because they can't attack us outright. Everyone who has tried that has been severely punished by our superior military. We had a chance to KILL Bin Laden. But it was politically incorrect to kill a few innocent people. So he slipped away. We had him dead to rights, ready to blow him away. Fear of the pussies freaking out in this country caused them to not make a move. I'm not saying having to do this stuff is good. It's terrible. But you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...LOL. If conservatives actually agreed with you they weren't conservatives at all. I agree with NONE of what you said and I'm a conservative :) About people saying your a "Liberal Fantasizing Idiot". IF you know that's what people will say... I just blew a blood vessel...ROFL

RE: Theory changes....
By robinthakur on 3/7/2008 5:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
I imagine that the problem would be if you or anyone you cared about were one of those "innocent" but apparently disposable people which you refer to. The 9/11 planners probably thought in very similar ways, just so you know. What you advocate is for most of the world to be living in fear of America (inlcuding the americans) which would be a pretty grim situation for all involved. Mind you, you're hopefully only an 12 year old kid and you clearly have some growing up to do still.

RE: Theory changes....
By ithis on 3/7/2008 5:37:05 AM , Rating: 1
We have been fighting violence with violence since the beginning of time. We are still fighting violence with violence today. One would think that after ten thousand years we would get that in the end IT DOESN'T FREEKIN WORK.

Sadly, we don't. :(

RE: Theory changes....
By Master Kenobi on 3/7/2008 10:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
One would think that after ten thousand years we would get that in the end IT DOESN'T FREEKIN WORK.

Actually it does work, that is why it is still in use. Cracking down gets results.

RE: Theory changes....
By Fanon on 3/7/2008 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Because talking with the school bully and asking him nicely not to stick your head in the toilet, take your lunch money, and kick your butt on the playground works any time it's tried. Oh wait...

RE: Theory changes....
By Kanti on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:02:36 PM , Rating: 3
There were indeed some holes in his argument, at least in my view.

Unfortunately though.. your brain shut down completely at "That's the supidest fu---," etc. Your obvious hatred for the opposite party, as well as apparently a lesser degree of at least strong disdain for business, must blind you. For example, defense contractors are expected to do well under either a McCain, Clinton or Obama White House. Jim Cramer, of Mad Money fame, seemed to my ear to be suggesting KBR would benefit from a withdraw from Iraq so it could focus on more profitable private industry work in the region! At least it still sounded like it'd do well.

Further, and it can be forgiven since it was past the brain shut-down point, but you don't seem to know at all what you're talking about when you say we "stole" their oil production. Their reserves were not forked over to private firms. Private US and UK firms were brought in to repair and develop fields, but ownership -- well, their constitution states it plainly:

Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.

Section Four, article 108, towards the bottom.

I found another draft of the constitution that has it in article 111 -- who knows what it is, but it's in there all the same.

Less blind rejection of "right wingers", more logic -- if thats possible for you. Based on other blind-rage liberals I know, it may not be. Good luck. :P

RE: Theory changes....
By Starcub on 3/8/2008 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Iraqi constitution is a deliberately vague document. It doesn't say that "All" oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq. It also doesn't say what portions of the resources will be given to the various factions.

While I have read elsewhere that the details of the oil deal are held in secret by the World Bank, I recall watching C-SPAN a few weeks ago and I believe it was a former US cabinate official who was saying that 20% of Iraqi oil would go to the Sunni's, 20% to the Shiites, and 20% to Kurds+others (others including most of the Christian population I would imagine). If what she said is believable, then the seeds for future discontent are being sown due to the disparity in population and political power that exist between the factions.

Of primary importance is that it appears that 40% of Iraq's oil will be going to foriegn oil interests, probably mostly western companies and not really the US taxpayer. To be clear, empire building has always been about bolstering someone's bottom line at someone else's expense, not altruism. If the US were really as committed to combating international 'terror' as our government has been telling us it is, I think we would have long ago been fighting the Muslim extremists who are helping the Sudanese goverment to commit genocide in Darfur.

If you are realy interested in becoming educated, there is plenty of info on the net about the oil situation. Read up on this link for example:

RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/6/2008 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
The compelling reason for the invasion and restructuring Iraq was to move terrorist activity off American soil.

Huh? You got rated up for this? What kind of misinformed neo-cons visit this site? The real reasons for going to Iraq may never be totally clear, but one thing is for sure, it was not to fight terrorists in their own backyard. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but he hated terrorists. They were a threat to his own power circle, and there were certainly no Al-Qaeda cells there before we invaded.

To remain passive and not send troops into the fray would have invited more attempts to kill Americans on our own soil.

I agree, which is why I supported going after Bin Laden then and now, wherever he may be. But Iraq had nothing to with that, and what also should not be forgotten is

a. the role our interventionist foreign policy has played in inciting hatred and fostering an environment ripe for pro-terrorism propaganda. Such activities include radicalizing Afghan militants to fight the soviets, bringing about the Iranian revolution with the CIA deposing their elected leader and helping nationalization of Iranian oil, dealings with Saddam Hussein, support of Musharraf in Pakistan (an unelected military leader hated by his people and associated with the west), permanent bases on holy land (most of the hijackers were Saudis who took offense to this, enough that they would be willing to do what they did). The list just goes on and on.
b. the neo-con downgrade of anti-terrorism operations that occurred when Bush took office, as well as the sheer incompetence and inaction on intelligence which should have been enough to prevent the attacks in the first place (middle easterners learning to fly planes and not land them).

Our military has done an impressive job of making sure that the terrorists are so busy defending themselves that they cannot plan and execute terrorist attacks here. It is simple and incontrovertable. History shows this very clearly.

History also shows that this is not sustainable long-term and is an enormous drain on the economy, so much so that it could cause us not only to withdraw on economic terms, but subsequently fall into a far more weakened and vulnerable state than if we had not acted militarily to begin with. These countries may be poor in comparison to our own, but whack-a-mole intervention doesn't work, because for every terrorist you kill, the damage and hatred you have incited in the attempt is enough for two more to be recruited in their place. Charging head first into their provocational rhetoric is playing exactly into their hands. We are making the same mistake the soviets made when they went into Afghanistan.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:08:37 AM , Rating: 1
Im sorry but you Americans still do not get it. Taking unilateral actions only annoys the rest of the worlds population. Them being annoyed with you is why they are attacking you in the first place, maybe you try pissing off your neighbours a little less first?

Second I find that Americans don't even realise what your greatest weapon is. It it not any of your military or military hardware. It is your culture. Your best weapons are McDonalds, MTV, Starbucks, Hollywood etc.
Look at teenagers all over the world, even in countries such as Iran, they love alot of the same music bands, the same clothes and same food.
Cultural assimilation is a far far more effective weapon than riding in gluns a blazing.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 1
I have to say you are right... But don't assume that all Americans dont "get it". Half of us do, its just that our half lost the last 2 elections... its a 50/50 split in this country.

If you say the right wing/religios/neocons/republicans dont get it, then you are correct. If you say they have totally embarrassed our country on the world stage, you are also correct. This election will go differently, if for no other reason that the reps have screwed it up so badly that they have little to no chance of winning in November.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 4:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
The problem for me though is that Hillary voted for the War and I have seen statements from Obama supporting unilateral action, the foreign policy of the Democrats imho is not really much if any better than the republicans :(

RE: Theory changes....
By andyjary on 3/10/2008 7:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for clarifying the situation, retrospooty. This will make a lot of people, the world over, reading this topic feel at lot more comfortable in the knowledge that 50% of us are really good at heart. As for the other 50% of 'Holes', it's a worry to say the least.

BTW: I also heard Obama proposed closing Guantanamo? I hope that hasn't changed too...

RE: Theory changes....
By geddarkstorm on 3/6/2008 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Whatchyou talkin' about? Retrospooty makes good points. It's only wise to get out of the mires we are already in, since they only show what greater potential problems we could be in later. Long term planning?

Moreover, how is it anything but good to reduce pollution even more? Reducing it, even by just a little bit per year will benefit everyone. We have to be wise and not just suddenly radically turn things on their head like some AWG believers have advocated, which would destroy our economy and society, but we still need to move forward and not sit like a stick in the mud.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks... Its strange to me. I say something totally commom sensical, and not at all politically charged "We do need to work to reduce emissions and improve efficiency to reduce our dependency on oil for 3 reasons 1. Economic 2. Political 3. environmental" and still catch flak for it here. I fail to see how can anyone be against anything I said there other than OPEC members, and other Oil barons?

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm not an oil baron, but when you strip away environmental reasons then most other motivations cant be dealt with by free markets. As oil becomes more expensive, or supply disruptions cause parts of the globe to pay much higher prices, then other technologies become cost effective and naturally get introduced of their own accord. The established oil players know in the long term their days are short (and they also know they're the object of a lot of hate, which is dangerous for them politically), so they're some of the largest investors in alternative energy. The free market is working. I doubt it would've ever given us this insane ethanol craze, which has done more harm to the well-being of humans then anything else I can think of from the past several decades, because it exists in large part on subsidies.

That'd be my only mild criticism. OPEC's a monopolist cartel and if anything existed like it inside the US the DoJ would trust-bust it overnight, so I don't disagree with where you're coming from.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is the markets are not free and are distorted. Therefore the market mechanisms for encouraging alternatives do not work.
An example is OPEC, afaik member output is roughly linked to reserves(afaik their reserves as a % of OPEC reserves determines their % of OPEC output allowed). However countries such as Kuwait state nearly the same level of reserves as they did 10 or 20 years ago, even though there have been no new oil finds there nor are there likely to be considering the country's geography.
By not reducing their stated reserves they dont have to reduce their output as much, but the problem is we never truly know what their reserves are and just how much gas the world has left in the tank so to speak.
This massively distorts prices and would artificially deflate them and could lead to us implementing alternatives to late.

RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 10:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that market is controlled too tightly for too long by people with too much to lose. The only answer is to reduce usage and invest in alternatives. We need to do it in a fiscally responsible manor though. Most people on the other side of that argument say "you cant it will destroy the economy" , not true. I am not suggesting we drop everything and throw away oir oil. Just to begin to conserve more, and research alternatives in a fiscally responsible manor.

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:35:51 AM , Rating: 3
Aha, but that's where you reintroduce politics and some sort of moral philosophy when you say "encourage." Markets needn't be 'encouraged', they seek out equilibriums on their own accord. If moving away from oil is necessary, then it would happen. In fact, it is happening -- again I reference oil companies being some of the largest investors in alternative energy technologies, because they recognize with oil at these price levels other technology becomes profitable, or would be with some amount of R&D spending.

As far as the stated reserves part goes, you aren't at all special in that knowledge. I don't know anyone personally that's studied the oil issue that isn't aware of it -- oil traders definitely are aware of it. I don't think it's thought to be a huge problem when vasty quantities of oil is being discovered seemingly all the time (Brazil recently found a huge amount), whats more important is production.

It sounds to me like you and retro believe we should move away from oil based on an opinion it woudl be a good idea, not economic reasons. If you were aware of economic reasons, then the economy would be as well if they were legitimate, and thus it would happen on its own.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 4:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Markets can not set out to reach equilibrium because market information is distorted. Markets need correct information to work properly.

Since the market information is not correct and nothing we can do will change that(OPEC is not suddenly going to be open with its data).
This leaves you with 2 options. Do nothing at all and live with the distortions and consquences or try to improve or take an educated guess into how to influence the market.

For example we know that oil reserves are highly likely to be overstated by OPEC therefore if anything the current price of crude is lower than it should be and not enough money will be moving towards developing alternatives.
I agree that is hard to judge just how much assistance, and that it must try not to distort competition, but imho planning in advance is better than waiting for the possible swift kick you might receive if you wake up to OPEC saying "oops we have run out".

RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 4:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
You say market forces are distorted, and cite OPECs numbers. I say it's not distorted because virtually all market participants are very much aware that OPECs numbers are bull. You say again market forces are distorted, for the same reason.

Information can't be distorted when people on both sides of the trade know the truth!

We can guess what the Middle Easts true reserves are, and perhaps some people have inside information on reality. What is, again, important is current production, and we've got good information on that. We'll know when certain OPEC countries are starting to run out when production starts to gradually fall off -- information that CAN NOT be hidden because its a simple matter of tracking their real exports. Until it starts to fall, it doesn't really matter.

Despite all that, increased demand and stagnant supply has risen the price. You speak like a typical Kenyesian, "Do nothing or do something", as in reference to government action, but of course the market is already far, far ahead of you. I will point out, FOR THE LAST TIME, the billions of private dollars being invested in alternative energy research by major oil companies and venture capitalists, all without any government intervention. They are planning ahead.

This is just like the socialists up in Washington DC debating how to force the mortgage industry to raise lending standards; meanwhile, within 24 hours of the first sign of serious trouble in the industry, they did it themselves, making a jumbo mortgage virtually impossible to get for many people. The markets need to be left alone, not talked down to, which is what you're doing.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 12:55:59 AM , Rating: 1
I dont know about you, but I dont like "crapping where I eat" so to speak. The problem is so alot of pollution is invisible(alot of the time) it is out of sight out of mind.

I think you should look up the correlation between lead in the enviroment and crime in the US you might change your mind.
Or maybe you would like it back when DDT first came out and they were so assured of its safety they made propaganda videos of spraying ppl in streets with it.

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 2:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
Settle down man, I mostly agree with you... I should have said it your way "I would like to end our dependence on foreign oil,"

I am not saying sell the farm, and stop all together, just come up with ways to conserve it so we need not buy it from the middle east or buy it brokered through Canada, its mostly still from the middle east.

We should be looking into energy alternatives in a fairly aggressive, but economically responsible manor. Thats all.

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/2008 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I hate online discussions, because it's difficult to translate tone. Often times, passion is mistaken for anger or aggression. My apologies.

Aside from clearing up my post to you, I agree with the foreign oil thing. I have no issue with effective use of oil [and conservation], but I also believe that if you pay for 20 gallons of oil, you should be able to waste it however you want. If it's putting it into your 1 MPG Land Destroyer, that's fine with me; it's your money.

The middle east gets a pretty bad wrap in the oil game. I do know oil comes from there, but the more and more I hear, my assumption that all of our oil or the majority of our oil comes from the middle east, isn't correct. My understanding has changed from where the middle east sells us almost all of our oil to just some. It isn't just the middle east, but from other countries that we aren't exactly "cool" with too.

I don't discriminate against foreigners when it comes to oil. As far as I'm concerned, American dollars should stay with the American people. We've sold off our independence as a country and I want America to never say it's dependent on someone else. This doesn't just go for oil, it goes for manufacturing and industry as well. I do understand natural progression of countries and we've shifted from an industrial country to a service based country. There's more money in the market, but we open ourselves to be blackballed by other countries sticking us up for more dollars. Screw that!

America is a can do country, you know. I don't see any issue with a service based society and industrial society living side by side. But, we've got all these special interest groups that get in the way of letting things happen, like drilling for oil. Not to mention, the government isn't offering incentives to be industrial in America; this is my perception.

Again, I have no issue with alternative energy, it just needs to be better than what we've already got or we're going to screw our economy. If it's not cheaper in the end, then why bother producing it? When it comes to money, people won't buy (in mass), a product that will save the planet (as the argument goes with global warming). I'm convinced a majority of American's never drank the global warming kool-aid and think a bunch of this global warming news is a load of BS.

Until it's better, people won't spend their money. That's just how it goes.

RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
Im sorry but your going to have to get used to dependence on other countries.
The ironic part is you have been for a long time through your current account deficit. You truly don't think that was Americans savings you were spending do you?

Outside of that no country in the world(outside MAYBE Russia) has all the resources required to be independent of others. There will always be certain resources that you will dependent to a large degree on another country.

I do not see this as a bad thing though. I think world trade is great for promoting contact and understanding between cultures. Also you hardly ever see countries going to war with each other that have a well established and lucrative trade between each other.

RE: Theory changes....
By mcmilljb on 3/6/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what petroleum products everyone has to use every day!
Alkenes (olefins) which can be manufactured into plastics or other compounds.
Lubricants (produces light machine oils, motor oils, and greases, adding viscosity stabilizers as required).
Wax , used in the packaging of frozen foods, among others.
Sulfur or Sulfuric acid . These are a useful industrial materials. Sulfuric acid is usually prepared as the acid precursor oleum, a byproduct of sulfur removal from fuels.
Bulk tar.
Asphalt .
Petroleum coke , used in speciality carbon products or as solid fuel.
Paraffin wax , packaging of frozen foods.
Aromatic petrochemicals to be used as precursors in other chemical production.

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/2008 3:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I do.

In fact, I love all these products and would hate to give them up. Also, the wife loves the paraffin wax. If anyone who is reading this is married and knows their wives calm down after a pedi, you'll want to make sure oil never goes out of style.

RE: Theory changes....
By ioannis on 3/6/2008 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
When something better comes along, that does more than oil and is cheaper than oil, people will invest.

are you waiting for a stork to deliver that 'something better'? And then 'people will invest'???

It's the other way around. We need to 'invest' to develop the technology that will harness the energy source that will replace oil. And as retrospooty said, it doesn't really matter if global warming is a threat or not. There are plenty of other reasons (which you dispute) to replace oil as an energy source.

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/2008 3:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
People do invest and they have invested [in energy]. There are interests in ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars. Pick your bet, that's what investing is all about. Personally, I see problems with all three, which is why I haven't invested.

As for me, I'm waiting for the one idea to come along that I actually know will take off. Right now, I'm keeping my eye on bio diesel; the fuel produced from damn near anything, but mostly waste products. There are issues getting that type of fuel to the market though, but it's mostly logistics. When someone can figure out how to manufacture bio diesels in huge quantities and get it out to the public quickly and consistently, it will have a shot. But, (here's the kicker), it's got to be CHEAPER than existing fuels!

You don't get people to invest significant amounts of capital on pipe dreams and that's how a lot of investors see alternative fuels compared to oil products. Why would you want to dump money into a product you're unsure will gain market success, when you could take the safe route with oil investments and turn a profit guaranteed?

Sure, investing helps grow products, but investing doesn't make the product.

And, still, I have yet to see a reason to replace oil as an energy source. For example, it makes sense to me why oil is still used to produce electricity next to nuclear energy. Oil is cheaper to handle, it is safer to handle and there is less red tape in producing energy with oil. Sure, nuke reactors can produce more energy than oil, but then again it costs more to hire people who know about nuke reactors and people who can safely run them. Not to mention the government oversight and dealing with the public, in that people have this built-in belief that nuclear energy isn't safe. If I were to invest in energy, it wouldn't be in nuclear energy until our government got out of the way of companies trying to produce cheap, affordable, clean energy.

RE: Theory changes....
By Polynikes on 3/6/2008 3:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/2008 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I love these political discussions, because it gives me a chance to gauge how fast my fingers can move over a keyboard.

Alas, my post was modded down... That sucks.

Thanks for reading!

RE: Theory changes....
By System48 on 3/6/2008 12:37:50 PM , Rating: 4
What are you talking about? We all know the world is flat and the universe revolves around the earth.

RE: Theory changes....
By deeznuts on 3/6/2008 1:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
WTF? The earth isn't flat?

RE: Theory changes....
By kattanna on 3/6/2008 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
if you have ever been to kanasas then you might be forgivin for thinking it is

RE: Theory changes....
By allometry on 3/6/2008 3:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
There's a quote in Guitar Hero III that says, "it takes a really long time to drive the van through Nebraska."

Kansas or Nebraska; forgiven for the flat Earth theory.

RE: Theory changes....
By clovell on 3/6/2008 1:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
On that same line of thinking....

There were centuries between Newton and Einstein. There were centuries where imaginary and irrational numbers were regarded as implausible and useless.

Dramatic changes to existing theory are certainly not the norm, and it is good to be skeptical (as with the circle-squarers of old who claimed to prove pi was rational). However, with so many esteemed researchers throwing their red flags on the field of an unevenly called game, you'd think the officials would stop for a few minutes and review the play so we could at least have a fair game.

RE: Theory changes....
By eye smite on 3/6/2008 8:31:52 PM , Rating: 4
I've been saying for nearly 2 decades that the global warming theories were a hoax to get more money. 5 billion a year? Yeah I'm still sticking by my statement.

By theapparition on 3/6/2008 12:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
You'll never see this reported in main-stream media.

We need to have a balanced rational discussion of the issues, not a biased, "presented to the masses because that what they want to read" propaganda.

The Earth is certainly going through climate change. The question's are, Is this man made? Is it permanent? And last is "Is it catastrophic or actually benificial?".

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving the enviroment, but for doing it intelligently. Not some stupid band-aid reaction that long term causes more harm.

BTW, very interesting read.

By murphyslabrat on 3/6/2008 12:26:44 PM , Rating: 3
We need to have a balanced rational discussion of the issues, not a biased, "presented to the masses because that what they want to read" propaganda.

No, what you need is a big stick with which to beat peoples heads in. Solves over-population and fear-mongering media simultaneously.

By Christopher1 on 3/6/2008 3:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
The fear-mongering media is a problem, however overpopulation is not. We are nowhere NEAR having the world 'overpopulated', we waste nearly 75% of our food from spoilage and over 50% of our clothing in the world today from having people toss it because it is 'out of style'.

People have to stop saying "The world is overpopulated!" and realize that the world still has enough resources for 10-100 times the amount of people that are on this planet even just using the wasteful tech of today.

RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By Kanti on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 3

Odd then that world population has nearly tripled since 1920, yet we're all better fed, clothed, and housed than we were then. By far.

The "population bomb" movement was big in the 1960s. They all pretty much died out when all their dramatic predictions about impending starvation and people stacked up like cordwood turned out to be so much hot air.

> " How long will it take us to exceed even your pie-in-the-sky ideas of 600 billion people"

Supporting 600 billion people would indeed be impossibly with current technology. But even ignoring the potential of future tech, one has to realize population growth is not a given. Many European nations are, sans immigration, actually shrinking, population wise. Some nations are shrinking regardless -- Russia, Germany, Japan, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, etc. It's so gotten so bad in Russia, in fact, they're holding lotteries for pregnant women and "sex days" to try to persuade people to breed more.

By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:31:16 PM , Rating: 1
The "population bomb" movement was big in the 1960s. They all pretty much died out when all their dramatic predictions about impending starvation and people stacked up like cordwood turned out to be so much hot air.

Those people? Many of them had spawns. Those spawns have grown up, and many of them have had spawns.

With the resurgence of liberalism for the first big time since Carter.. it's all coming back to the fore.

Sort of like those cicada bugs they go under ground for a while, and keep coming back making the same annoying buzzing noises again and again.

By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:37:34 AM , Rating: 1
And yet you completely ignore that if you take many resources that US citizens use and their use per capita and if you multiply that by just India or China's population you completely outstrip many resources.
There is absolutely no way in hell the Earth can sustain all the worlds population at the level of consumption of American or Western consumers.

By masher2 on 3/7/2008 9:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "you completely outstrip many resources."

Such as what? As far as human purposes are concerned, there's essentially an infinite supply of resources -- as long we have energy to create and/or process them. With an abundant supply of energy, metals can be recycled infinitely, water can be desalinated directly from the sea, arable land can even be created from nothing.

The only bottleneck is energy -- we can't fuel a world population of 60 billion on fossil fuels. But with nuclear power, it's more than feasible.

By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
You should probably tell the Chinese and Indians that, as they're actively lifting hundreds of millions to a capitalist middle class and have invaded the list of top billionaires in a big way, all without causing much harm to anyone else. In fact, Europe and America have been big winners from the recycling of dollars and Euro's keeping interest rates low and cheaper products keeping inflation tame.

This is something I see almost universally in all Europeans I come across; an understanding of economic theory that hasn't advanced a day past Thomas Malthus and his theory of limits on population growth. We can verify with empirical observation that once a state leaves the Dark Ages, which is what Africa is still in**, and begins to modernize then Adam Smith's vision of an unending upward spiral of higher labor productivity and economic output appears to be more the norm. Given that the rate of technological advances doesn't at all appear to be slowing (in fact many believe the rate of advance is exponential), even European socialist economists see no particular problem -- in fact, they are quite busy trying to figure out how to handle the fiscal catastrophe that awaits Europe when its intergenerational wealth transfer schemes lock up as its population shrinks and greys.

That brings up a different point. If you did for some reason want to limit population growth, you should be cheering on the capitalist process that can bring wealth to the billions of relatively poor around the world. Wealth seems to be greatest contraceptive the planet has ever known.

**: Africa's population explodes because they've managed to lower the death rate, possibly by the introduction of some modern medical knowledge. If they were truly ignorant of all that, they'd probably have a more flat population growth rate as predicted by Malthus.

By murphyslabrat on 3/8/2008 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Gosh, look where an innocent joke took fear mongering here...

RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By fic2 on 3/6/2008 12:30:30 PM , Rating: 5
Interesting psuedo-fiction book on the subject is Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Don't remember ever reading a fiction book that is foot-noted on basically every other page. His theory on global warming is that it is a gov't created "crisis" because the people at our level need something to worry about. It was brought up to fill the gape left by the cold war.

BTW, in the 70s scientists were warning about the coming ice age.

By FITCamaro on 3/6/2008 1:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
And some are starting to again.

By clovell on 3/6/2008 1:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
I really enjoyed that book. Crichton typically has a number of footnotes and scientific articles cited, but State of Fear went above and beyond his usual referencing with a bibliography of over 30 pages.

By MustangMike on 3/6/2008 10:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting psuedo-fiction book on the subject is Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

I found a brief article on that book I must say it's interesting...

BTW, in the 70s scientists were warning about the coming ice age.

here's a Newsweek, April 28, 1975 article about global cooling!

Washington Times Global Cooling Article

World Climate Report: Global Cooling?

Before you label me a skeptic just hear me out. I'm an everyday thinking American I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or Left versus Right B.S. I'm only beholden to the truth and nothing but the truth.

The biggest problem I see is with the whole climate change is that it's all scientific theory. Anyone remember the Scientific Method chart?
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The point behind this theory was that other scientists could replicate the theory and either Confirmed or Debunked it.
I don't recall a group of scientists sitting in a room discussing if Thomas Edison's light bulb would work or not.

There were actually many people before that were working on a lightbulb. Thomas Edison's lightbulb was based on pantents by Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans. Using trial and error as well as the scientific method Thomas Edison was able to reproduce and make a better version of the lightbulb.

So why the brief history lesson most of us know from school?
Because when you look at the way the IPCC was created, it was created by a group of scientists who agreed upon information. They said it was a consensus among scientists,
but what does that mean? Here is the real meaning of consensus according to Websters Online Dictionary

Science is either True/False, Yes/No, Confirmed/Debunked, there can not be consensus in science. That's why we have the scientific method and why other scientists re-create experiments to confirm or debunk THEORIES. If science is nothing but consensus then we would still be taught that the Earth is flat and that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun.

Just looking at the website for the IPCC says it all, look at the graphic. The first thing you notice is that the IPCC picks and chooses which "experts" they want to use. The bureaux selects authors to write the reports which get read by "experts" and then re-written. Then the IPCC and the experts review the document. Who are these experts? Who's doing the proof reading and where is the science? Still looks like theories at this point.

They have multiple parts to the report, political, co2 greenhouse, the scientific/technical information and a final part.

The second problem with the theory is that a former Vice President took the political report and Co2 report and presented it as fact.

Al Gore's Movie Factual Errors?

BBC Al Gore Energy Hypocricy

Consensus can be wrong.

Global Warming or Global Cooling over the last hundred years it's a debate between both.

The Sun is causing Global Warming?

No More Global Warming Since 1998?

By TimberJon on 3/6/2008 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
We humans make things. Take a vacuum, Dyson figured out how to improve the motor that had been a STANDARD forever.

Improvements to technologies and machinery are commonplace. Computers, Batteries, Engines, Etc...

But we didn't make the earth. I believe it was intelligently designed. For those that believe it just *pop* appeared over untold millinea, we STILL didn't make it or shape its design.

So how in the hell are we really going to CONTROL it? Or improve it? As Agent Smith said, we are an infection, a virus.

By theapparition on 3/6/2008 12:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Take a vacuum, Dyson figured out how to improve the motor that had been a STANDARD forever.

It's very interesting to read up on Dyson. He didn't improve the motor at all. What he did was come up with a way to remove bags. When all major companies turned his technology down, he started his own company.

He has several patents, although almost all involve using a big ball in the place of a wheel.

Having owned some Dyson vacuums, I have to say that I'm overlly un-inpressed with thier design. Way to bulky and plasticy, with hard to use and un-ergonomic attachments. Cleaning performance is about par with the competition. Not revolutionary by a long shot.

Sorry for going off back to topic.

By ElFenix on 3/6/2008 1:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
there is a 'dyson digital motor,' which they claim is internally developed. it's just a brushless motor that can operate at a higher than usual RPM.

By Staples on 3/6/2008 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 1
This may be the first intellegent post I have ever read in these types of articles. Reading the comments in these articles are always as biased as the article is.

Sure, Alaska and Greenland are melting but that is happening because the climate there is getting colder right? I think most the posters would agree with that logic.

RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By B3an on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
By KristopherKubicki on 3/6/2008 2:42:31 PM , Rating: 3
The New York Times hires a single editor to write about nothing other than Intel and Apple. Is it inappropriate to specialize a writer?

By lukasbradley on 3/6/2008 2:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not in the least. Strangely enough, CNN and the New York Times have a reporter dedicated to the goings-on in Second Life.

However, before the decision was made, was his specialization determined to be "Global Warming Specialist" or "Global Warming Debunking Specialist?" Was he selected with a specific purpose in mind?

RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 3:39:02 PM , Rating: 4
The NY Times lead environmental reporter Andrew Revkin teaches "environmental journalism" at Columbia. In his spare time, he gives environmental speeches at many events, often singing a sing he wrote himself, called "Liberated Carbon":
We yearned to burn more than dung and sticks.
Then Satan came along and said, ‘Hey, try lighting this.’

He opened up the ground and showed us coal and oil.
He said, ‘Come liberate some carbon. It’ll make your blood boil.’

Liberated carbon, it’ll spin your wheels.
Liberated carbon it’ll nuke your meals.
Liberated carbon, it’ll turn your night to day.
Come on and liberate some carbon, babe, it’s the American way.
If you want to discuss reporters with agendas and preconceived notions, I suggest there is a good place to start.

By JustTom on 3/6/2008 10:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
I like it, it has a good beat and you can dance to it.

By MadMaster on 3/7/2008 1:20:34 AM , Rating: 1
So, on any side of a argument there are radicals. There are environmentalists who like to 'pocket mulch' or 'save the yeast infection.' I tend to think of them as radical environmentalists.

On the flip side... The radical conservatives are more like this...

The middle ground is usually people who know global warming is a problem, and want to do something about it. However, their isn't much they can do...

RE: It's good that there is some balance, but.....
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 2:44:34 PM , Rating: 3
Are you saying he's wrong? Or this study is wrong?

Or are you just unable to cope with the reality, that AGW is a political problem, not a scientific problem.

By MadMaster on 3/6/2008 11:29:46 PM , Rating: 1
Or are you just unable to cope with the reality, that AGW is a political problem, not a scientific problem.

The study is wrong, and AGW is both a political and a scientific problem.

By freeagle on 3/7/2008 6:03:53 AM , Rating: 3
The study is wrong

I suppose you have at least SOMETHING to back your claim

By allometry on 3/6/2008 4:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are you accusing Masher of becoming a Kool-Aid entrepreneur?

right-wing science
By nehushtan on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: right-wing science
By KristopherKubicki on 3/6/2008 2:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just because Zagoni presented at the conference doesn't make him a quack, or any of his data less relevant.

Let's see what other people said about the conference outside of the thousands of nameless bloggers:

Anthony Watts:
Some valid and interesting ideas have been presented here, and despite all the scoffing by the critics, there wasn’t any group prayer, tobacco booths, or free cans of 10W-40 motor oil. It has been all about science, and science policy.

I was slightly horrified that the conference received so much negative press. Perhaps it was the fact that the sponsor receives 5% of its donation budget from oil companies. Weird that the frontline push is for ubiquitous nuclear power.

Some other interesting articles on the conference:

It's also noteworthy that they can't get their theory published in major peer-reviewed journals.

It isn't? Might want to let these guys know.

RE: right-wing science
By Kanti on 3/6/2008 4:28:42 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry KristopherKubicki, you're wrong, he's right, this is quackery, and well financed quackery at that. You need to do more research.

RE: right-wing science
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 9:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well financed? The total speaking fees paid to all 100 attendees at the conference equals 1/2 of what Al Gore gets for one single speech now.

RE: right-wing science
By gsellis on 3/7/2008 8:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
That is inane. This conference is a direct result of your heroes' attempts to silence opposing views to their poor statistics and modeling practices. YOU need to do more research.

RE: right-wing science
By nehushtan on 3/6/2008 4:55:40 PM , Rating: 1
With all due respect to the Hungarians, that journal hardly counts as a major scientific outlet. You shouldn't be surprised that this conference is not considered important and was subject to widespread ridicule. The conference and its participants deserve it, whether or not oil money supports was involved directly or not. The conference was created by a right-wing think-tank (though one hates to use that word) and the point of it was propaganda -- not science. Respectable scientists should not have agreed to attend and I doubt if any really did.

Quoting Anthony Watts gets you nowhere, of course, since he's a known GW skeptic as well as a participant in the conference.

RE: right-wing science
By James Holden on 3/6/2008 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Every single article in google news, bar none, is one journalist or bloggers "opinion" on the show. Not a single one managed to report about any presentation one way or the other.

Did anyone even attend this thing?

RE: right-wing science
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
I did. The BBC was there as well, though they refused to interview any of the scientists, and instead spent their time haraunging Lord Monckton wherever he went.

RE: right-wing science
By MadMaster on 3/6/2008 11:50:05 PM , Rating: 1
Be proud, wear the badge of honor. You are now considered radically conservative. Don't worry, you're a dying breed...

You went to a conference designed specifically to contradict global warming. Has no scientific bearing whatsoever.

RE: right-wing science
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 5:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, nearly 200 Ph.D. holders attended, from from a dozen different nations. The speaker list included the vice-chairman of the IPCC, several IPCC reviewers, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a chairman of the American Meteorological Society.

RE: right-wing science
By Ajax9000 on 3/6/2008 8:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
Out of interest, were Dr. Stephen Garner or Reto Ruedy part of that group, or were their opinions sought outside the conference?

RE: right-wing science
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 9:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Neither attended; they were specifically sought out to provide a contrasting viewpoint.

Am I missing the scientific point?
By lukasbradley on 3/6/2008 12:33:42 PM , Rating: 4
his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

I don't get the point. Does this mean the Earth isn't warming? Does this mean that even minute changes in temperature won't have an effect? Does this mean these minute changes aren't possible?

The surface temperature of Venus is 900 F, much hotter than Mercury. I'm not inferring Earth will get there by any means. However, greenhouse gases do have an impact. Even if there is a limit, that limit can be much different than the status quo.

In summation: there's a limit to the amount of heat to be trapped? No kidding. That doesn't mean a 1, 5, or 10 degree jump won't have adverse effects.

RE: Am I missing the scientific point?
By masher2 on 3/6/2008 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 4
All good points. According to Dr. Zágoni, the maximum amount of warming possible is, for Earth, in the range of 2-3C.

The difference between us and Venus (besides its receiving nearly twice as much solar insolation, of course) is that Venus has some 250,000X as much CO2 and almost no water vapor. That sets the limit far higher.

Conventional theory states that, as CO2 rises and the earth warms, more water vapor is created, further warming the planet...the runaway grenhouse effect that, in theory, doesn't stop until the planet is hellishly hot.

Somewhat simplified, the new theory states that increased CO2 increases precipitation, lowering water vapor, and forcing the atmosphere back to its equilibrium state.

By KristopherKubicki on 3/6/2008 12:47:32 PM , Rating: 3
The interesting thing is Zagoni will have a new data point sooner than later. Venus Express is coming online:

RE: Am I missing the scientific point?
By MadMaster on 3/6/2008 11:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
Conventional theory states that, as CO2 rises and the earth warms, more water vapor is created, further warming the planet...the runaway grenhouse effect that, in theory, doesn't stop until the planet is hellishly hot.

You have a gross misunderstanding of positive feedback effects and runaway global warming.

Here are a few links to help your ignorance.

RE: Am I missing the scientific point?
By AlexWade on 3/7/2008 8:21:50 PM , Rating: 1
You would have some credibility if you would STOP CALLING Wikipedia a reliable source. As it stands, you keep posting links to Wikipedia. I think I might just change that article. Then where will your precious point be?

By MadMaster on 3/8/2008 2:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...realclimate isn't reliable? They both say the same thing...

If Glomal Warming isn't real...
By jhtrico1850 on 3/6/2008 12:33:54 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see the hurt in trying to save ourselves before we run out of oil and develop cleaner alternatives.

RE: If Glomal Warming isn't real...
By stilltrying on 3/6/2008 12:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
me neither. lets keep researching for more efficient use of energies or keep trying to create new ways of making energy but not under the guise of global warming.

By MadMaster on 3/6/2008 11:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Check this Chinese car out...

I wonder what the price will be... probably dirt cheap if sold in the USA. is a Chinese car...

There is no Global Warming guise, but a side benefit is we will not be dependent on depleting fossil fuels.

Could we stay on topic, please?
By Arctucas on 3/7/2008 7:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
I thought I would see intelligent, rational debate regarding the veracity of the findings and theories presented in the article.

Instead, I find the comments went almost immediately economic and political arguments.

Is anyone here actually interested in the SCIENCE?

By Symmetriad on 3/7/2008 11:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you haven't been reading DT long. These threads always become polarized political battlegrounds that focus more on namecalling, emotional arguments and political bickering than actually addressing the scientific claims of the article. It's a depressing example of the typical level of discourse on this subject.

By GX08 on 3/6/2008 12:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well if this is true at least we won't have to worry about cooking ourselves, but we should still continue to look into alternative energy sources. Oil is a finite energy source and prices really have no where to go but up; we need to keep pursuing renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and strive to make things as energy efficient as possible.

RE: Comforting
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 1
You make it sound like we need to make a grand plan to solve this "problem."

Actually, all we have to do is just be smart consumers and purchase the lowest cost energy. The market will take care of the rest. Rising oil costs would cost further R&D in alternative energy, which would make alternative energy costs to become relatively more attractive cost-wise.

Also, the current rise in oil and gas prices has little to do with any kind of "shortage." For example, the weak dollar has contributed a lot to the current rise in oil prices. Some estimates are that over $30 of the cost of oil are due just to this currency effect.

And of course the rising gas prices have to due with refinery capacity, which has been limited due to a lack of investment on the part of oil companies. In other words, it was planned to work out this way.

The Money argument is ridiculous
By Kanti on 3/6/2008 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
I love when you people who know nothing about research try to chime in and say that all researchers have a financial incentive to promote GW. That's just idiotic, I've worked in this field all my life, and THERE IS NO MONEY. There is only a financial incentive to deny GW, that's where the funding is. Another thing you're all so ignorant about, is peer review. One peer review is NOT the same as another, and just because this guys work is peer reviewed, doesn't mean he's right. This is how science works, if he's right, his theory will win out, if it's not (and since the loss of polar ice is WAY WAY outside his model it almost certainly isn't) then the field will adopt it. End of story. No great conspiracy, no back room deals. THAT IS SCIENCE. You don't get funding when someone else's model proves you wrong. In research the only financial incentive is to be RIGHT. And aside from the normal petty personal politics, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

By werepossum on 3/6/2008 8:21:37 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, let me be the first to call bullshit on this. Budgets for atmospheric research have hugely increased since CAGW became a major issue. The more likely CAGW will destroy the world, the more funding. The more funding, the better the chances for employment and advancement. To deny the huge influx of money into climate sciences due to CAGW is to lose any shred of credibility.

Conversely, to deny CAGW in any detail is to threaten one's employment in university or government (by far the largest emplyers in the field of climate research) and lose any practical chance of government-funded research. I'm not saying that CAGW is necessarily wrong; I'm just saying that it is being presented not so much as a science, but as a religion.

I would like to add that I can't belive a foaming ankle biter like yourself is in any way a scientist, but I suppose that given Hansen I can't assume that would be a valid point.

And Schwartz is full of it too...
By Kanti on 3/6/2008 4:23:52 PM , Rating: 1
Read on, there's more to this than dailytech is letting on, it reeks of right wing misinformation. If you want the other side, start with these articles...

By gsellis on 3/7/2008 9:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously don't realize that the links you provided are invalidated by this article, right? The models they are using are based on this forcing model that assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. They also assume that CO2 is casual of temperature change instead of symptomatic (cores show CO2 follows, not leads temp change).

Plus and key, if a model cannot predict past and current data, it is flawed. Considering all the bias that has been deliberately put into the model, that is no surprise. AGWphiles have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with the climate.

some interesting science for once
By bonerici on 3/19/2008 4:29:13 PM , Rating: 3
it's nice to see the republicans all hail this guy as the next great explainer of global warming. Don't you love it that no matter what, every single explanation they give, every random explanation, like supernovas, sun cycles, cosmic rays, and orbital inclination, no matter what it is, no matter how bad the science is they crow to the moon how great it is.

so, that being said. I've gone over the equations and they seem ok. One problem with this scientist's contention that all the current models are wrong, is that most climatologists models use several layers, from the ocean through the lowest layer of the atmosphere, and the middle layers, and each one has a boundary condition set, so this doesn't automatically disprove any particular model of the atmosphere.

Also, his models seem to give incorrect results when you apply them to the last few ice ages. Still, it is interesting science and worth talking about.

I'll be interested in the verdict of climatologists over the next year on his math and assumptions.

Of course, for the global warming deniers, this is just another in a long list of scientists who are automatically correct whenever they disprove global warming.

What happens when a brand new paper comes along? What if he is a crackpot? it doesn't matter, he is hailed as the next great scientist on global warming. Republicans treat crackpots and real scientists the same. If they prove gobal warming they are idiots if they disprove it they are rebel geniuses. Republicans can't tell crackpot science from real science.

so, yes, interesting science, and this paper might have impact on some climate models.

by the way, it's nearly impossible to get actual reactions from scientists about this paper. Instead I get hit after hit of right wing denial of global warming when I try to look at reactions to this paper.

By geddarkstorm on 3/6/2008 12:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
"The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling"

Or exactly what we've seen since 1998? Guess we'll see for sure in the next decade or so.

More and more
By porkpie on 3/6/2008 12:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis
Seems I read something similar to do this almost every day now.

By Tuor on 3/6/2008 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, one theory fits with the data better than another theory. One theory makes better predictions than the other theory. Which theory should we make prevailing for determining how we explain the phenomenon in question?

Well, if you're getting paid, whichever one pays the most to believe. I guess that's the message we should all take home from this. And most importantly we shouldn't look at who is paying us or why.

And then there's ego, which you invest in some theory which you base your entire scientific reputation upon. Objectivity? Not when your ego is at stake!

It's not about scientific accuracy and predictability, but ego and money. And in the end, the non-scientist is left with emotionalism, appeals to biased authority, and endless repetition to decide what to believe.

Le Chatelier's principle
By plowak on 3/6/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
"If the conditions of a system at equilibrium are changed, the system moves in such a way as to oppose the effects of that change."


By Integral9 on 3/6/2008 4:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now I know they had basic weather gathering instruments, but come on people! They can't really be serious. Sure we have farmers almanacs and diaries recording temperature and rainfall data from back then (1808) but that's really all there is. I'll give climatology 60 years of science, before that it's not much more than blind men walking through a maze.

Just as a reference: Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein during a period in which science was but a babe and frankly scared the hell out of most people and that was 1818. Doctors were still lopping off limbs to cure simple infections and bleedings were common solutions for fevers and that was 'cutting edge'.

I'm not saying I want to live in smog infested cities, but just because this guy's model is new is no reason to throw it out.

By phxfreddy on 3/7/2008 12:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
....has ever been needed to be published. Because it would be the last report !!! God I hope the people who believe in this farce that is MMGW realize what utter SAPS they are when its all made clear !!

Can we get the Nobel prize back?
By wookie1 on 3/7/2008 11:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Can we get the Nobel prize back from Al and give it to someone else more deserving? Now that he boosted the hysteria level in order to reap millions by speaking to audiences, can we get some of that money back too? Or is it all being spent on his electric bill? What a crock. All this "tipping point" and "artic is screaming" BS.

Nobel to Gore
By ChipDude on 3/7/2008 12:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Your Prize has been recalled for leveraging old and inaccurate data for your own self gain

200 year old theory
By IRMIN on 3/10/2008 4:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
"200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.
Of course....because no long standing theory has even needed to be changed.

Yes, but a 200 year old theory may not be applicable to the problem. Case in point. At the turn of 1900 Physicist started to play with atoms and electrons and they discovered that 200 year old theories (Newtonion Physics) did not describe what they observed, so they invented a new physics called Quantum Physics to discribe what they observed.It worked.

By yonaton on 3/11/2008 2:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
...otherwise the climate would have originally been briefly in a metastable state where once the threshold was reached, and the trigger pulled, it would be unstoppable. And resetting it would not be easy, if it were possible at all.

So, once triggered by the early earth's very high CO2, that long-ago runaway would have set earth's temp at max, and most likely kept it there. Yet, whenever it's gone up, it's come down virtually immediately (not the response that would be expected), and done so numerous times, to boot.

What's wrong with that picture?!

Given that CO2 and Temp have both been higher in the past on numerous occaisions, with temps coming down even when CO2 was much higher than today, it should be obvious that such a scenario is a fantasy.

But con artists pray on ignorance and fear, and so the more of us they can scare (especially law-makers), the sooner they can start transfering all that free carbon-offset money from our pockets into theirs.

Lost again
By MadMaster on 3/6/2008 11:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

He got the entire runaway global warming wrong. Also, this contradicts what the IPCC summary shows.

That we'll eventually reach a equilibrium temperature.

I got to give it to you guys though, your getting better at faking Science.

Of course, its always about money
By stilltrying on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Of course, its always about money
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
What are you even talking about???

RE: Of course, its always about money
By stilltrying on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
By Torched on 3/6/2008 12:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
Also Google "cap and trade" to see McCains plan. (failed legislation w/Lieberman aka "The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act")

By kattanna on 3/6/2008 12:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
hes talking about crap like this

please note the date.. march 5th, 2008

RE: Of course, its always about money
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:50:27 PM , Rating: 1
Bah, it will never happen. anyhow, what I meant was how can you bring Obama into this. He has nothing to do with any of it. I listen to him alot, and never heard anything about a poverty tax. He DOES want to repeal the George Bush tax break on those that make more than $250,000 per year, and give that break to the middle class, not the poverty stricken. I agree with this. Those that make over $250,000 per year are living the American dream and damn well should be paying for it, thay are reaping the benefits of living here. Joe Shmoe, making $65,000 per year and barely able to pay his mortgage, and unable to afford to send his 3 kids to college is not living that dream, and deserves a break.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By porkpie on 3/6/2008 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why do Obama supporters always know so little about the economy? According to the Congressional Budget OFfice, the Bush tax cuts resulted in wealthy taxpayers paying MORE of the tax burden, not less:

RE: Of course, its always about money
By KristopherKubicki on 3/6/2008 12:59:16 PM , Rating: 3
Stay on topic.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 1:01:14 PM , Rating: 1
You must be an Obama supporter?

That's the first request I've ever seen on this site to stay on topic - ever.

By Lord 666 on 3/6/2008 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well isn't Kris from Illinois?

RE: Of course, its always about money
By KristopherKubicki on 3/6/2008 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I'm proud to exercise my right to not pick a political alliance. Especially since all the candidates are terrible anyway.

However if this thread devolves into ad hominem attacks (including the candidates, other posters, etc) I'm going to crack down on it.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By stilltrying on 3/6/2008 1:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
im not singling out the poverty against any one particular candidate. im simply pointing out that i feel this GW movement is about starting an unnecessary tax based upon made up information and that the other two taxes mentioned is that those in charge are trying to tax us to death

By robinthakur on 3/7/2008 5:32:42 AM , Rating: 2
Be thanksful that you don't live in the UK, its already happening here...

RE: Of course, its always about money
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you there - why is it that every presidential election comes down to Americans being able to vote either for Idiot #1 or Idiot #2? I swear practically every election I can remember has been like this, and it frustrates me greatly. Out of all the incredibly smart and talented people in this country, why can't we get any that are motiviated to step up, and also be able to survive the demented political process?

And specifically, for this election, having to choose between McCain and (Obama or Clinton) - my choice will probably to be to either (a) stay home, or (b) vote only for the other races on the same ballot. I can't in clear conscience vote for another idiot again. I voted for Bush last time around because I thought he was less of an idiot, but he proved me wrong quite nicely.

Regarding moderating, why not just let your in-place rating system take care of that? Idiotic remarks will be punished appropriately!

By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
" I voted for Bush last time around because I thought he was less of an idiot, but he proved me wrong quite nicely"

LOL... Dont feel bad, he fooled alot of people on that one. not me, no way. I knew he was full of shiz from day one. But a good 49% of the voting population of this country (the 49% that voted for him).

By werepossum on 3/6/2008 11:38:44 PM , Rating: 3
I too am suffering from electile disfunction. This year I'm writing in Satan - I'm tired of settling for the lesser evil.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By RogueSpear on 3/6/2008 1:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
You must be an Obama supporter?

You must be a McCarthy supporter. You're about as ignorant and quick to label people as he was.

By TomZ on 3/6/2008 2:03:45 PM , Rating: 3
It was a question - did you notice the question mark?

Calm down, relax....

By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:34:54 PM , Rating: 1
"According to the Congressional Budget OFfice"

Your figures from that right wing ragsite are as full of crap as Bush's administration is. Wrong... totally wrong.

RE: Of course, its always about money
RE: Of course, its always about money
By retrospooty on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Of course, its always about money
By clovell on 3/6/2008 1:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
What are you saying? Levying a Carbon Tax will raise taxes (read as: income / revenue) - it has nothing to do with spending or costs.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 2:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
I am not saying either, and I am not for a carbon tax at all. The subject was somehow changed to Obama, by userid - stilltrying up above, I was responding to that. Lets take it back to topic.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 3:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
I do hope you see the extreme hypocrisy of Obama railing against NAFTA while simultaneously appearing to be concerned about global poverty -- that's actually pretty hilarious. Of course, you've been campaigning openly for him here for a while, so no doubt you don't see it.

In one moment he's pushing a policy that would shut down free trade, an instrument that used in conjunction with free market reforms in developing worlds is solely responsible for the massive growth in the developing world during the past couple decades, and in another moment he appears concerned. The Economist called Democrats out on some of the dirty back-door policy instruments they were trying to insert in to trade deals last year, and called the Democrats behavior towards trade "shameful." I'd agree.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By retrospooty on 3/8/2008 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
You find it hipocritical to believe that he is against Nafta, because too many companies are outsourcing jobs from american workers, leaving them unemployed??? Seems obvious to me.

Why can that same person also be in favor of helping poverty stricken nations using a different method? And I also want to point out that most of the countries nafta jobs are going to are poor, but not starving, its not like we are outsourcing industry to Kenya and Ethiopia and such.

Yes, I can see how it would be hard to believe, cosidering the narrow minded right wing rhetoric you listen to and formulate opinions from.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 4:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
Narrow minded right wing rhetoric?

Seriously, have you ever taken an econ course that wasn't principles level, or read a non-partisan book on the issue not meant for mass indulgence?

Paul Krugman. Author of 'The Conscience of a Liberal'. He also wrote 'The Great Unraveling', a scathing attack on Bush and his tax cuts. He, too, would tell you to educate yourself; he was and still is an ardent supporter of free trade. His textbooks would very clearly show you that the best path to prosperity for the impoverished nations is free trade. There are better ones that do the same, but I cite him because, like you, he's a liberal -- just educated on the subject matter.

People like Ricardo have, for nearly two centuries, established as fact, not "opinion" as you would like to believe, that all nations engaged in free trade derive a net benefit. A liberal such as Krugman would tell you that, so would a conservative such as Rostow, who was a famous ultra-hawkish Cold-warrior economist.

I will also point out how last year a group of 1000 economists, 500 Republican and 500 Democrat, sent an open letter to Congress essentially telling liberals like you and the tiny number of Republicans opposed to free trade to shut up before they did significant long term harm to the nation; they were making all sorts of protectionist and interventionist mumblings last year. How much more bipartisan does it have to get for you to understand it, retro?

It's not impossible to be a liberal and understand economics, not at all. It's a little difficult, but not impossible; the largest problem is removing the mental blocks that your ideology places upon you. It is, however, impossible to understand economics and hold your insane view of how trade has been working.

For the record, of course don't provide jobs to Ethiopia. They're too far down the value chain to be of use to us; we can get some things from them, but their infrastructure sucks too badly. We give Chinese manufacturers a place to export to, and the Chinese have been the ones investing in the places that are that extra step down in development. So much so that Europe is just waking up to the fact that China has more influence in Africa than they do.

If you'd educate yourself from sources other than partisan websites, you might be able to realize that economic theories aren't partisan in nature. Along the way, you'd also realize that the greatest proven force for raising millions from poverty in the last 30-40 years has, in fact, been free market capitalism, and nothing else.

Final point: Europeans, whom Democrats tend to idolize, have begun to realize that Reaganomics is in fact the way to go. Ireland didn't have the Irish Miracle due to a switch to socialism and trade protectionism.

By ObiWanCeleri on 3/16/2008 12:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes. Reaganomics are the way to go.
Check out Argentina. They went for reaganomics in a big way. And the country collapsed.

And how about Chile? It's people had just voted socialist in a big way but Milton Friedman had to show them the way - a nice liberal economy backed up by a dictator in a bloody coup. Nice. Killed everyone in the socialist party too.

And now that the US economy is failing, should we place a friendly dictator to get you out of a jam also? You seem so eager to have one ...

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Lord 666 on 3/6/2008 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 1
More and more, I believe that the Global Warming and "save the environment" is more about the US economy and the pending recession.

We all agree that there is a push for more fuel efficient cars, light bulbs, etc. There is a higher initial upfront cost, but the monthly cost is now lower than previous.

Let's fast forward and pretend we are in a 1930's style recession and everything is more efficient. Cars now use 30-40% less fuel and light bulbs use 66% less electricity. But because of the economic times, we are spending about the same monthly cost per month for electricity and fuel as the prices have skyrocketed to about 30-60% more than before the recession.

As this post demostrates, there is conflicting evidence on if global warming is really happening. But what for a fact is happening is a control struggle over the Earth's energy resources. The US now has a presence in Iraq and Afghanastan where there is plenty of oil. There is a looming crisis on the borders of Venezula, Columbia, and Ecuador.

There is much more to the global warming argument... but its for geopolitical reasons and not scientific.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 12:47:38 PM , Rating: 4
Interesting idea, but Afghanistan is not oil rich, and our occupation there is well-justified because of terrorism.

With regards to the "looming crisis" in South America, it has nothing to do with oil.

But I agree, that control of the world's energy resources - or more generally the world's resources - is a classic struggle that has been going on for centuries, and I don't think it is going to end any time soon.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Lord 666 on 3/6/2008 12:52:17 PM , Rating: 1
Pipeline through Afghanistan that the US was in talks to do until our occupancy.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 12:59:29 PM , Rating: 3
I'm aware of the planned pipeline, but I don't understand your assertion that our occupation of Afghanistan is somehow related to that. Please fill us in.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Lord 666 on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Of course, its always about money
By jskirwin on 3/6/2008 1:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what planet your from but it sure isn't mine.

First off what does the presence of a few Taliban have to do with the pipeline not being built? Iraq has several pipelines and the level of insurgency there is much higher.

Second, we invaded Afghanistan a month after 9-11. Coincidence?

Third, 1 pipeline of oil? We're going to invade a country for one pipeline? If oil was that important we'd have taken over Canada years ago.

Finally, we haven't found Bin Laden because we're really not looking for him, huh? I suppose the fact that he's probably either dead or hiding real well in Pakistan - a country we're barred from operating in - hasn't crossed your mind.

And in case you haven't noticed the Taliban is protecting the narcotics trade now (

By AgentPromo on 3/6/2008 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Id have to concur with your statements. Its like that saying about seeing the trees in the forest.

Maybe the US will build a pipeline or 2 in Afghanistan. Just because that happens does not automatically imply that is the reason we invaded. I sure as hell hope that we are not spending hundreds of billions of dollars there for 1 pipeline...

Anyways, beyond that the US forces are very actively destroying poppy crops and it really upsets teh locals because not much grows (apparently although I am no agronomist) there. So they are actually turning to the Talibs to protect the poppy fields. So if anything the drug programs are working against the US interest in many ways, and is not something that is supported by the US. `

By werepossum on 3/6/2008 8:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Somebody's tinfoil hat has too much lead in it.

The Taliban did not "effectively prohibit" the opium trade. They simply confiscated the opium and sold it themselves. Perhaps that is considered as effectively prohibiting it on your planet, but on ours, not so much.

I'm not sure why liberals point to our failure to find Bin Laden as evidence we are not truly looking for him. If our government can't find 20 million illegal aliens within its own country, why the hell would you assume it can find one single man within a sympathetic population in one of the most rugged areas of the globe if only it was "really looking"?

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Farfignewton on 3/6/2008 10:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
If we invaded Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden, why haven't we found him yet?

It took 5 years to catch the Olympic bomber, and he wasn't in the mountains on the other side of the world with a fanatical support group. He was in our own backyard. Hmm... make that front yard.

RE: Of course, its always about money
By Etsp on 3/10/2008 2:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point...

By BansheeX on 3/11/2008 9:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, we didn't know the identity of the bomber until the year he was caught.

By andyjary on 3/10/2008 7:28:07 PM , Rating: 1
Here we go TomZ, suck on the second half of this video presented by a republican:

There's your answer! :o)

By fic2 on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Latest Headlines