EXXON Always Knew AGW Was Real...

That's a dumb question. How much do you spend on gas going to and fro that unnecessary resort home in an ecologically fragile area?

It sounds important to me.

Not a lot. And Interstate 80 is not an ecologically fragile area.

We don't use a lot of energy, because our house is well insulated, with no a/c, in a mild climate. We get monthly PG&E bills, gas and electricity combined, around $80 most of the year.

ver

ract,

often

ne.

th

ul,

uld

you don't even belong here. As for intelligence, dunno what kind of 'tard thinks corn is grown for its leaves.

t it would not matter one iota what I use for transport.

Typical example of Larkin not knowing what he's talking about. There's not a lot of point in reducing CO2 levels in your immediate vicinity - the stuf f spread itself around the world rather rapidly, as you can see from the mo nth-by-month figures from Mauna Loa, which reflect the northern hemisphere plant cycle.

In fact we appreciate that because CO2 gets around as enthusiastically as i t does, there's not a lot of point in individual sacrifice - the only chang es worth making are society-wide, and they can be made at fairly minor cost - a fraction of a percent slower economic development every year for a dec ade or so.

Tackling anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve using less energy per head - renewable sources could provide all the energy we use now, and a wh ole lot more beside. If we could change over immediately it would double th e price of energy, but we can't, and by the time we've tooled up to get mos t of our energy from renewable sources, economies of scale will have made r enewable energy cheaper than energy generated by burning fossil carbon.

If we took into account the environmental costs of burning fossil carbon re newable energy would be cheaper now.

That's what you choose to think. Like most of what you post here, it's ill- informed and fairly obviously implausible.

Again, something you choose to think. The only emotional content in my post s is the visceral dislike of misinformation. If you had the wit to apprecia te the points being made - as opposed to being fixated on the single point that matters to you, which is the extent to which our responses feed your s elf-satisfaction - you'd appreciate that there wasn't a lot of emotion invo lved.

IN general, you can't force access. It's usually already in existing contracts or local statute. I *GUARANTEE* you a rancher can shut a drilling operation down. He'll get a C&D and eventually a lawsuit if this persists, but still....

That's abundantly unclear. One of the functional roles of the bigger consortia is that they can insure against this sort of thing.

There are a lot of "Gasland" level of unreliable reports around. Overall, the operators take it all deadly seriously.

The tax laws related to this were set up during coal mining. Oil extractors do not dodge taxes other have to pay.

Nothing to be done about that.

It's accelerated a great deal in just the last 20 years.

It is an exciting challenge. It just always takes too long :)

I was thinking more of foreign countries, some of which have had extended visits from western military (or threats, and persisting to this day).

What's the value of clean air? clean water? These companies treat our environment like a trash can, and pretend that it will never matter. More concrete example- Superfund (once upon a time it was supposed to be funded from taxes on polluters) is now (poorly) funded out of general tax receipts.

I guess I don't think of myself as in the same league as these major corporations. I certainly don't consider it 'fair'.

As old as I am I'm not yet resigned to that.

I agree. All the more reason to get to work now, rather than waiting for the giant 'integrating processes' to reach dangerous levels.

THat looks like a prison allowance?

Would the low energy lifestyle be the lack of exercise in the court yard?

Just checking.

Jamie

Jamie generalising from his own experience again ...

Irrelevant to the discussion, of course. It was about the knowledge that fossil fuel burning causes global warming, and a major corporation having its PR flacks tell a story they ought to know to be false. It's also about the hold that false story has on some folk's imagination.

Regardless of WHAT we decide to do, and how successful our species is in providing for the next generations, prudence opposes denialism. So does wisdom. The wisdom, in this case, of a major corporation's competent technical staff...

You and John S should get together, share your incredibly vapid thoughts.

How do you get around? Unicycle?

John Larkin seems to have decided to go into competition with Jamie to see who can post the most irrelevant suggestion - a sort of race to the bottom.