You didn build that !

OK Dave, you've got me...

Yes, fossil fuels are booming especially here in North Dakota, now #2 oil producing state in the US (after Texas) due to the oil boom in the Bakken Shale. I experience this first hand daily with the large number of what can only be oil trains rolling through town just a block from my apartment. BUT, that doesn't mean that clean/renewable energy isn't doing well either. Cost per unit electricity from solar and wind have plummeted, especially in the last 5-10 years, in no small part due to govt. investment (I just read some great stuff on this and looked for it but couldn't find it so you'll just have to trust me on this). I don't think there is a "one or the other" option here, and in fact with much if anything that we are often "arguing" about. Energy demands are going to continue to go through the roof for the foreseeable future. Green energy is doing well (as John has already noted). The failures are the exception not the rule and, as in any good capitalist system, as necessary part of the process.

To John's comment that we are running out of oil, from what I can tell that is not the case (well for the foreseeable future, sooner or later we must by definition run out). Proven reserves continue to grow, new finds are being made all the time, and the technology to extract the resources continues to be developed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are already today on the books proven fossil fuel reserves that are approximately equal to all the fossil fuel that we have burned so far. This is where the opposition to Keystone XL comes from, at least for me. Dave(s), I'm pretty sure you are a climate change skeptic(s) but I am obviously not and I am sure that if you knew what I do you wouldn't be either, bug I digress... I'm all for jobs (hell, I need one!) but the question is if building the pipeline is a net benefit. Actually, I have a somewhat perverse view of things that sometimes says, "Screw it just build the thing so at least we get the benefits cause you know if we don't somebody else will and the benefits will just go to them." This occurs at my low and cynical times...

I'm not much for economics/finance but index funds are clearly the way to go. I'm totally with you boys on that.

Healthcare is a very tricky thing, and quite honestly I don't even know what to think of it half the time. My go to position is that I think it is good (this seems to be the consensus from my friends who work in the field) but that it isn't for free (hence the instability, increased costs, changes, etc.).

davidg wrote: DC is the richest zip code in the US, and they don't make, or produce anything there. They just take our money and live high on the hog, and redistribute it.

I read a great piece on this about a year ago. It doesn't come as a surprise to learn that this wasn't the case as recently as 10 or so years ago. It also will not come as a surprise to learn that about the only reasonable explanation for it (from what I have read) is the influx of lobbying dollars. And these dollars go to both the left and the right. Indeed, fortunes as spent primarily to keep things as the status quo, and of course that way everybody in DC benefits while the rest of us... well you know what happens.

Thanks John. Like my XL feelings I perversely like to see this thread pop up just for the banter between the four of us.

I should be in the Chicago area a few times once it (please!) warms up again in the spring/summer. Maybe if I get lucky it'll be "Chicago Beers" time, but if not a drop in to see you and the Mustang will be in order.

J$

john b wrote: Good to hear from a rational head, Jamin. Lets have a couple drinks together next time before "last call".

Gotta agree with you John. Jamin is sounding very rational...almost...gasp....conservative!! There are streaks showing through anyway whether he knows it or now. I am encouraged! .

Hansel wrote: OI'm pretty sure you are a climate change skeptic(s) but I am obviously not and I am sure that if you knew what I do you wouldn't be either,

I'm a huge skeptic of climate change due to man. I'd love to hear your views on why you think it is real.

I'm just curious about your statement "If you knew what I knew, you wouldn't be (a skeptic) either."

So I guess I'd like to know what you know that would make a skeptic, like myself, a believer.

I do believe there are people out there with an agenda. Al Gore is one of them.

I do not believe the earth is warming as temps have basically remained stable for the past 15+ years.

As a person who has been working in the environmental sciences field for the past 13+ years, I guess I'm just curious as to why you believe it is real.

Hansel,

Edit: I just read the Earth Day thread. I know your thoughts on the subject. Let's agree to disagree.

Hansel,

Here's my take on it. I work in a lab where we utilize our data to protect our land owner from lawsuits and to continually monitor all aspects of waters and soils on said property. We've been doing this for almost 40 years for about 32 square miles of property and have the database to back up our findings.

I have seen with my own two eyes how a data set can be made, through selective data interpretation/manipulation, to validate a particular point of view regardless of what the numbers show. This is highly unethical in our field, but it happens all the time.

Without seeing the data sets of all the research that supports the global warming theories myself, I cannot simply believe they are true. I also see the agenda behind pushing this theory to make money off the people. When politicians start pushing this theory, all bets are off and my guard is up.

What pisses me off the most is that there is data on both sides of the argument that support each side, yet those that believe that global warming is real will state that the data refuting that theory is junk or paid for by "big oil', yet their data is right as rain. This is blatantly obvious based on the remarks from the Earth Day thread.

Any research that comes to a definite conclusion should be reproducible, yet many of the models predicting global warming have been debunked or are not reproducible. As a scientist, this type of outcome is inconclusive at best and therefore should not be used to present a theory as fact. It remains just a theory.

I see no problem in trying to be environmentally conscious and to do our best to be as clean as possible, but I don't like being forced to do something for a reason that has yet to be proven.

I've read the articles in the Earth Day thread and still am not convinced that man made global warming exists.

Feel free to post any information you think may open my eyes to global warming, but I don't think you'll be able to prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that man made global warming is occurring or exists.

We also may want to move this to the Earth Day thread if you wish to continue this discussion so as not to hijack this thread anymore than we already have.

Jamin, While you are answering questions, I started the earth day thread with the question of why have we had no warming over the last 15 years when man made carbon dioxide production went up 30% in the same period. I definitely see some correlation of between earth temps and carbon dioxide (but not nearly the correlation seen with sun activity)but I am not sure of which drives which. If carbon dioxide were to rise with the earths temp, and not the other way around that would explain the lack of correlation in the question above. Perhaps co2 is even a temperature buffer in a way we have yet to figure out and the earth uses it to protect itself ( I have no evidence of this, and have not seen it proposed, its just a thought, but to paraphrase Joe, I aint to bright about science think'n). So the question is what evidence tells you which is the driver, temp or co2?

Obama was in the Twin cities again today promoting some taxing and spending. Man its hard to get any floors installed with one hand busy protecting my wallet



Aaaahhhh I never get tired of that one!

Don't forget Dave's "Earth Day" thread as well. That is 14 pages now.

I can't wait to see what his next masterpiece will be.

How about pulling out the video of Jimmy Obama telling Romney during a debate from teh 2012 election that "the 80's called, and they want their foriegn policy back" when Romney said that Putin was a geopolitical threat.

Jimmy Obama was suggesting that Romney was still living in the Cold War era. Maybe we should ask the people in the Ukraine if the Cold War is over. Romney turned out to be spot on, and Barack Carter looks like a piker when going up against Vlad!

Or, how about the IRS going after Tea Party groups? Or, how about the FCC sending "researchers" into newsrooms to find out how and why certain news items are picked? Another good topic would be how well Obamacare is going.

The econony shrunk 1% first quarter. More proof that Keynesian economics does not buy growth, it just rents it. Oh well at least the debt will last long enough to give Obama a legacy.

Silly me for thinking people having jobs trumps a boat ride. I will try to think more like a retired guy on a government pension

OverMyHead wrote: The econony shrunk 1% first quarter. More proof that Keynesian economics does not buy growth, it just rents it.

It proves that how? What Keynesian remedy was applied that somehow didnt work? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

If this is disappointing financial news, I'll take it!
Markets close at new record highs
Must be the Kinesthetics!