Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:
Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts' used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing, especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not later. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I think that would be great. It would force you to sell your
crapola Hunter. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:26 -0400, "Michael" wrote this crap: Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon I wanted a tax on stupid people, but I found out we already have one. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Why's that? It's not easy, but it's possible. We could certainly
be tied to the middle east a lot less. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... Jonathan Ganz wrote: ... we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. Now that's ridiculous. -- jlrogers±³© Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin Eschew Obfuscation. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
You're already popular with the gay crowd.
You go by popularity? Sounds like the typical fool. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote this crap: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. That's going to make you popular, assclown. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. PDW In article , thunder wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote: Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts' used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing, especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not later. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:
I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it, but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970, I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are not a energy source. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I agree that spiraling oil prices will have an effect on our
economy. In fact, they have quite an observable effect. However, I believe we have the wherewithal to overcome the adverse economic consequences. Not saying you're a doomsayer. I'm saying that the doomsayers are wrong that the economy will collapse. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message news On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote: I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it, but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970, I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are not a energy source. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:30:25 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I agree that spiraling oil prices will have an effect on our economy. In fact, they have quite an observable effect. However, I believe we have the wherewithal to overcome the adverse economic consequences. Not saying you're a doomsayer. I'm saying that the doomsayers are wrong that the economy will collapse. One thing I have noticed over my years is that this country is incredibly resilient. We have made mistakes, but we also have overcome them. IMHO abandoning Carter's energy self-sufficient initiatives was a mistake. Since then, our energy policy has been market driven leaving us vulnerable to the whims of foreign interests. Oil may not be the primary reason for the Iraq War, but no doubt it wasn't far from any of our minds. I firmly believe we can ameliorate our dependence on oil, but it will take a major national effort that has yet to enter mainstream debate. Whether or not to drill an ANWR just isn't enough. It has been pretty clearly established that roughly 1/2 the world's supply of oil has already been burned. Now, that might not prove catastrophic in our lifetime, but I fear we are leaving our children and their children headed for a train-wreck. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
"thunder" wrote
I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. Gasoline was $1.25 in San Diego in 1979 but only 43 cents a few miles away in Tiajuana. Why? A Mexican official explained "Cuz you have an Energy Czar and a comprehensive energy policy and we don't" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Thank you Professor Maltus.
thunder wrote: On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:51:09 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Too much reading for me right now...care to summarize? Oil, or lack of it. Production of world oil supplies are expected to peak sometime between now and 2025. As oil is a gift deeply entwined in our lives, the future without it will be quite traumatic. Depending on who you listen to, the effects range from the death of a growth based economy, to a population die off. -- jlrogers±³© Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin Eschew Obfuscation. |