« Eight Dollar Gas | Main | Did you ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie? »

Grand Conspiracies And Occam's Razor

The other day, I wrote about Al Gore's speech in Washington where he expressed his ongoing concern about global warming and carbon footprints -- showing up to deliver his message in a motorcade of two limousines and and SUV. I talked about how he actually was a tiny bit correct in his position, but that was overwhelmed by his own hypocrisy and exaggerations.

In the comments, though, one of our more out-there regular detractors, "dr lava," made a few very cogent points about the issue. However, like Gore's, what little he had to say of value was overwhelmed by sheer BS. One paragraph leaped out at me:

Breaking the propaganda stranglehold oil and coal companies have on the American public is the main challenge here. Limbaugh and Hannity are paid big money to keep their listeners in the dark about the green economy and the empowerment of the American people to break their addictions to expensive, dirty energy and take charge of their own energy production.

Hmm... Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (I'm presuming those are the gentlemen to whom lava is referring; he violated the rule of giving the person's full name on first reference) are in the pockets of Big Oil (and Big Coal) and repeat those industries' lies for financial gain. Let's take a look at that, shall we?

First up, a confession. I don't listen or watch either Limbaugh or Hannity. Their styles put me off a bit. Obviously, that's not a universal sentiment, as they are both extremely popular, but they just don't appeal to me. So I might mess up some details about them, but I think I can wing it well enough.

Limbaugh was in the news recently for signing a contract extension with Clear Channel Communications through 2016 which was reported to be worth over $400 million. That works out to $50 million a year, in the simplest terms. (Which I'm sure were not the case, as there was likely a very hefty "signing bonus" involved, as well as performance bonuses and a sliding-scale increase every year and whatnot, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll say it's a straight $50 million/year.)

That's a lot of money, far more than most people need or can readily use.

So how much could Big Oil be paying Rush that he'd be willing to risk his standing with his fans by taking payola? It'd be like Brad Pitt cruising the streets for a hooker. (OK, it happened with Hugh Grant, but that's a wild exception.) Or Hugh Hefner looking for the next Playmate of the Month on Craig's List. Theoretically possible, but highly, highly unlikely in practice.

OK, so Limbaugh isn't likely to be directly taking money from Big Oil. Could they be funneling it through Clear Channel?

Well, Clear Channel is a publicly-traded company. So, for that matter, are the companies that make up that evil cabal called Big Oil. The kinds of money transfers that would be necessary to buy off Limbaugh would be fairly traceable.

Sean Hannity: similar story. He's mainly known through his work on Fox News, where the ratings for Hannity and Colmes are consistently very high. And his talk show on radio is also very, very successful. In both cases, Hannity is part of a very profitable program, and I am sure is rewarded quite handsomely for his successes.

In other words, both men already make plenty of money doing what they are doing now, and in both cases a healthy dose of that can be attributed to their fans perceiving them as independent voices, straight-talkers, who make their trade in speaking their unvarnished and untainted opinions to the masses.

This stands in stark contrast with Air America, their ideological opposite, which has suffered abysmal ratings and one financial setback and scandal after another, which makes it abundantly clear that their business model is NOT based on mass appeal and making money.

I guess it is possible that Limbaugh and Hannity are being paid off by Big Oil and Big Coal to spread their propaganda and suppress The Truth About Global Warming (oh, I'm sorry, "The Truth About Climate Change"), but it's not bloody likely.

On the other hand, there's Al Gore. A failed politician who latched on to his current cause and turned it into a whole second career. Gore, who has made literally millions and millions off promoting the cause of fighting Global Warming Climate Change. Who started an investment fund that pushes "green" projects (and, I'm sure, has rewarded him handsomely). Who has made heaps and heaps of money selling and trading "carbon credits." Who has sunk pretty much every bit of himself into this cause, but hasn't demonstrated a single iota of personal commitment into living his life the way he says he wants us all to live.

On the one hand, Limbaugh and Hannity. On the other, Gore. Which has nearly their entire personal financial well-being built on the issue of Global Warming Climate Change? Which side has the most to gain -- and lose -- in pushing their agenda?

I don't have any hard facts on either side, but Occam's Razor says that when confronted with multiple explanations, the simplest one is usually the correct one. And in this case, it's clear that the side that has the most invested financially, the most to gain -- or lose -- financially, is not Hannity and Limbaugh, but Gore.

The decades-old wisdom of Watergate continues to echo true: "follow the money." There isn't a direct link between what Limbaugh and Hannity say and their wallets. But there is a gold-plated chain that goes straight from what Al Gore says to his own pockets. Toss in how the absolutely refuses to live a lifestyle consistent with his own stated beliefs and principles, but has a "carbon footprint" that probably dwarfs both Limbaugh's and Hannity's, and you can't help but question the man's sincerity.

Thank you, dr lava, for pushing your cockamamie "Limbaugh and Hannity are being paid off by Big Oil and Big Coal" conspiracy theory. It is, of course, utterly laughable at its face -- but it got me to thinking about who just might be making money off the whole situation.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30589.

Comments (33)

I have listened to R... (Below threshold)
dr lava:


I have listened to Rush and Hannity over the past few weeks and they are pushing hard the notion that drilling in the Gulf and ANWAR is gonna save the country, and gas prices and this energy crisis are all the fault of Democrats.

Why would they promote these falsehoods? All it takes is a quick look at the Department of Energy website to read the facts. Are they exploiting the ramifications of passing peak oil for a political gain in November?

The facts are that we have passed peak oil and are now on the desperate and dangerous slide into a world that, thanks to our "leaders" we are ill prepared to handle. I think if people realized what a truly precious resource oil is and how life as we know it is going to change very dramatically over the next decade they would lose a lot of sleep. We need oil for so many VITAL things we can not waste it by burning 70% of it in cars to go to the mall.

I admit I have no proof that the oil companies are writing Hannity and Limbaugh checks, so what is there motivation? I think if you truly understand the precipice we are standing at their agenda is the most anti-conservative message imaginable. So what is their motivation? Occams razor would point me to money.

There is a movie out there that is an absolute must see. It is interviews with OPEC ministers, ex-oil company executives, geologists, scientists etc . It's called "Crude Awakening". It will pretty much remove any optimism you may have for a few weeks. It is also 100% Al Gore free.

I would really like Jay Tea to see this, I would like everyone to see this and then read the speech Gore made and pretend it is from.....I don't know......say Tom Hanks...then tell me what you think about the plan.

Also paid off by Big Oil an... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Also paid off by Big Oil and Big Coal? "The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and that many of its members do not believe in human-induced global warming."

dr lava rants on about why "we can't drill our way out of the oil shortage." It's interesting that BHO and the Dems all say that drilling for the proven reserves in ANWR and the OCS isn't the answer because it won't produce any short-term relief due to the time it will take years to produce any usable oil. (Actually, this isn't true. Drilling in ANWR will require construction of an oil pipeline, but OCS drilling could produce usable oil in 12 to 18 months.) But their solution - pursuing wind and other alternative energy solutions WILL TAKE EVEN LONGER and still won't give us any relief at the gas pumps, where we'll be filling up our cars for at least the next 25+ years. Drilling may not be the only solution, but it's one the Dems won't ever accept because it relies on the private sector and doesn't involve the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Caution, people have been k... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Caution, people have been known to cut their own throats using Occam's Razor. It's really not a test of which position is simpler, but which requires fewer assumptions.

Sometimes that's not clear, but in the case of who's getting rich from promoting a particular energy scenario there can be no doubt that it's Al (do as I say not as I do) Gore.

The "follow the money" stra... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The "follow the money" strategy doesn't just work for Gore.

One of the biggest scientific sources for global warming is James Hansen at NASA - who has been caught fudging temperatures to match predictions. Hansen got a $250,000 grant from Teresa Heinz Kerry's foundation for his work in supporting the AGW hypothesis (and for his long-term support for Democrats). And this is while he's still getting a government paycheck for supposedly doing "independent" research.

Lava is out of his mind if ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Lava is out of his mind if he thinks I would waste one minute of my precious life viewing a "mockumentary" ala Michael Moore and swallow it as fact. There are no more documentaries that are objective. Lava, you have lost faith in the inventiveness of American ingenuity. Largely because of your hatred of Bush. ww

Dr Lava is being completely... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Dr Lava is being completely dishonest here; at least about Hannity. I haven't listened to Limbaugh in a very long time, but I've recently tuned into Hannity a few times out of curiosity - mainly to see if he's still rude to his callers, constantly interrupting the ones he doesn't agree with and not letting them finish what they want to say.

I found one very interesting thing in my recent "checking in". Each time I clearly heard Hannity reiterate that, yes, we should drill to alleviate the current problem, BUT it should be done in conjunction with vigorous research and development of alternative energy.

But the latter part of his argument doesn't fit with Dr Lava's shrill narrative, so Lava just conveniently leaves it out.

lava says:I ... (Below threshold)

lava says:

I have listened to Rush and Hannity over the past few weeks and they are pushing hard the notion that drilling in the Gulf and ANWAR is gonna save the country, and gas prices and this energy crisis are all the fault of Democrats.

Once again, lava, you set up a straw man just to knock it down. Rush and Hannity have been arguing for drilling in ANWAR and off shore for the reason that it will lessen US dependence on foreign oil, lower the trade deficit and strengthen the dollar and our economy. They have specifically faulted Democrats (and Rush has eviscerated Republican John McCain) for not opening up ANWAR. They have have been crticising all of Congress for not allowing offshore drilling and that criticism is working: note the turnaround by Florida's Crist on offshore drilling and the President's recent executive order on OCS drilling.

Why would they promote these falsehoods? All it takes is a quick look at the Department of Energy website to read the facts. Are they exploiting the ramifications of passing peak oil for a political gain in November?

Another straw man argument,lava. They are not
promoting falsehoods and you provide no data from your source to support any argument. You're just demagoguing this issue. Any political gain in November will be determined by the voters and I remind you that Limbaugh has savaged McCain on his ANWAR position.

The facts are that we have passed peak oil and are now on the desperate and dangerous slide into a world that, thanks to our "leaders" we are ill prepared to handle. I think if people realized what a truly precious resource oil is and how life as we know it is going to change very dramatically over the next decade they would lose a lot of sleep. We need oil for so many VITAL things we can not waste it by burning 70% of it in cars to go to the mall.

What is your source to prove that "we can not waste it by burning 70% of it in cars to go to the mall" State a source for that ridiculous comment.

lava, citizens are losing sleep over the price of oil and they are doing something about it. The price of used SUV's is plummeting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/06/26/2008-06-26_selling_used_suv_can_hurt.html

People are cutting back on vacation travel:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2008-05-22-vacation_N.htm

Smart consumers in this country don't need require a memo from Congress to make what is already an obvious choice. They understand it is a precious resource.

I admit I have no proof that the oil companies are writing Hannity and Limbaugh checks, so what is there motivation? I think if you truly understand the precipice we are standing at their agenda is the most anti-conservative message imaginable. So what is their motivation? Occams razor would point me to money.

You have no proof because there is none. Us oil companies are motivated to supply their product at reasonable prices that their customers can afford. The recent price shock is Exxon's worst nightmare because Exxon makes its profit on high volume distribution. As the above links indicate, consumers are purchasing as much gasoline and therefore the high volume distribution that domestic oil companies rely on is dropping.

Another point that you need to dwell on is that Exxon/Mobil, Connoco, Marathon and other domestic oil companies are noy Big Oil. They are Little Oil.Big Oil is OPEC.

Algeria 1969 Africa
Angola 2007 Africa
Ecuador(**) rejoined 2007 South America
Indonesia 1962 Asia
IR Iran* 1960 Middle East
Iraq* 1960 Middle East
Kuwait* 1960 Middle East
SP Libyan AJ 1962 Africa
Nigeria 1971 Africa
Qatar 1961 Middle East
Saudi Arabia* 1960 Middle East
United Arab Emirates 1967 Middle East
Venezuela* 1960 South America

and Russia.

These are all extremely large government owned monopolies that dwarf the US oil companies in size and scope. You are correct in stating that Ocam's Razor would point you toward the money and that list above is where the money is. To suggest that Exxon has any advantage in influencing oil prices that surpasses the advantage of those government owned monopolies is fatuous.


consumers are purchas... (Below threshold)

consumers are purchasing

Should say: "consumers are not purchasing"

The "Grand Conspiracy" abou... (Below threshold)
RayK:

The "Grand Conspiracy" about Global Warming Climate Change is is that the globe has been cooling for the past year according to the University of Alabama Huntsville. Using globally averaged satellite-based temperature measurements in the lower atmosphere, the current global temperature average is the same as it was in 1979.
Also, the combined sea ice area at the North and South poles is increasing and is greater than the area measured in 1980 according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Climate Change is not just ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Climate Change is not just about money for Al Gore. It is the perfect socialist tool for control of people.
It will allow governments dictate what we eat, where we can live and where we can work. Example the UN wanted to charge a travel charge for people who board planes. However they would of course be exempt. How long till beef is restricted because of methane gas they give off. Since humans exhale co2 how long till there is 1 Child policy to save the planet.

I think a solid plan which attacks on all fronts is what we need.
We need private sector to make money which means jobs to American Citizens and revenue to the government.


Funny how 5 and 10 year plans were always the great answer in the past.
0. The FED needs to commit to a strong dollar
1. We can start to drill now and in 2 years some of that Oil will be available for use within 6 half and in 10 All.
2. Build Nuclear Plants increase domestic energy form nuclear from 15% to 95% Which would reduce Carbon and other pollutants from gas and coal energy plants.
3. Build new refineries and refine 100% of our own Gas instead of exporting Oil to Canada to buy back Gas,
4. Convert Coal now that it not needed for power to Gas,
5. increase research into batteries
6. Increase research into Carbon fibre to be used in Cars, Reduce weight while increasing strength so we have safe cars that get better fuel milage.
7. At the same time you can also do research into Solar, Wind and batteries (Wind does not have a good method to store excess energy)
8. Announce the elimination of Ethanol mandates for humanitarian reasons.
9. Increase Natural Gas cars.
10 Work on Hydrogen distribution plants.
11. Award a 3 year tax break to the first car company that makes a commercially viable car that gets over 75MPG. can reach 100MPH, transport a 5 persons and is as safe as an SUV>

Same thing for other incentives. Give a tax break on a produced product

One of the weird things abo... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

One of the weird things about this latest price spike in crude oil is there is no shortage of oil, at least no immediate shortage. Past spikes have been caused by sudden reductions in crude supply and the subsequent long lines at the gas pumps. This time the cost of crude oil is pushing the finished products price and that in turn eliminates the margins for refiners, bulk plants, and retailers.

Funny how the democrat left... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Funny how the democrat left wing hacks have a cure for everything and produce nothing but words. Like it or not you are tied to coal for power/heat and oil for power, heat and transportation. Got something to replace either of them, put it on the market and the public will buy it. Until you have something other than 'words' you should avoid making a fool of yourselves.

dr lava says we have passed... (Below threshold)

dr lava says we have passed "peak oil" but that isn't to say there is no more oil out there. Peak oil is the assumption that production will decline. But theoretically, if enough assets were allocated to production, peak production would be reached on the last day of production. We may be past the days of cheap production, but we haven't reached the point where there is no more oil to be found.

I think a solid pl... (Below threshold)
I think a solid plan which attacks on all fronts is what we need. We need private sector to make money which means jobs to American Citizens and revenue to the government.

Maybe figure out how you're going to fund this "solid" plan before throwing it out to the world.

0. Umm, ok, nice idea, but the FED doesn't control the value of the dollar outside of not printing more.
1. Not enough oil in ANWR and OCS to make a big enough impact. OCS drilling seems to be very much a politically-motivated move in an election year.
2. I completely agree.
3. If we're running out of oil/coal or moving to other energy sources, why would private industry waste the millions to build a plant and only get 10-15 years out of it?
4. How do you determine what's not needed, and who regulates it? The govt.? Good joke :)
5. And raise taxes to cover it.
6. See 5.
7. See 6.
8. I agree again, and suggest ethanol should never have been regulated/mandated in the first place.
9. Um, infrastructure? Cost? Oops, right, see number 7.
10. I thought we were increasing the number of Natural Gas powered cars. Now I'm all confused.
11. A "three year tax break" means everyone else in the country will pay more taxes to cover it. So like, see number, which now, 9?

I may have misunderstood your post as suggesting these should be govt. initiatives, but how would one mandate private sectors dump more money in R&D than they already have/will? That's why it's called the private sector, because (in general) the public can't tell a private company what to do with its money. Sorry if this comes off as a flame.

The FED controls money poli... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The FED controls money policy. In the past indication by the FED that the US was committed to a strong dollar has help to raise it. The Fed would need to change its current interest rate policy. Also not just printing money which cause devaluation is another method

What difference do you want to make?
1. Increase supply domestic supply Check
2. If offshore is no good why does Cuba and China want to drill for it?
3. because we even with all the doom and gloom scenarios we still have 80 years + of Oil, Which means Gas, jet Fuel and other products are still going to need to be produced. So new plants that are more efficient less waste full is still profitable. Which would increase the bottom line.
4. 48%% of our power comes from using Coal to generate electrify
20% comes from using Natural Gas
3.0 % From Oil
I am saying free those up by using Nuclear to generate power. By freeing up those resources They can be used for other sources. Also with new refineries better methods to convert these make sense.
5. Who says I need to raise taxes. I would look at a number projects on the books re-prioritize and free up money. Also more leases are granted the more money the government gets funding could be directly done by opening up all those places and as Oil is brought to bear the Us government royalties on every barrel produced. More drilling sites, more refiners more exploration all means increased revenue to the government so no need to raise taxes.
9. We already have natural Ga cars buses today so government is already allocating funds to it. With less consumed for power more is available to be used for cars and buses. (we also have deposits in the Gulf and by allowing offshore drilling we get more Natural Gas. We need to get more of our own or will need to start importing it also.
10 As I said multiple fronts Hydrogen is an alternative but you do need a way to pump and manage gases things advanced learned from natural gas distribution for use in cars can also be applied to Hydrogen as it becomes more feasible.

11. If you control spending a tax break does not have any affect. In fact lower taxes always increase revenue. Let the companies pay for their own R&D let them get it to market and then enjoy 3 year break.

The idea is to allow it to come to market at price with no up mark from taxes which will allow more consumers to but the cars and displace the old ones.
Let the government start setting direction and get out of the way.
Issue the lease to allow oil and natural gases to build and drill.
Allow the construction of Nuclear power plants, refineries, and nuclear waste processing plants.
Better use research dollars already on the table.
Example the Military already want more fuel efficient and batter vehicles expand those projects.

I hope I explained myself.


"I have listened to Rush... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"I have listened to Rush and Hannity over the past few weeks and they are pushing hard the notion that drilling in the Gulf and ANWAR is gonna save the country,.."

Wow. The very first sentence of the very first comment from lava is a complete and utter lie.

No one has said ANWR would save the country by itself.

Jay, why do you reward trolls with actual posts about them? The rats will never go away unless you stop feeding them.

Big Oil USA has cut product... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Big Oil USA has cut production over 40% since the 1980s, capping wells from Oklahoma to Alaska and keeping them capped. For price leverage purposes. So any talk about drilling in ANWR, etc, is just rhetorical poppycock to feed the birds with.

Big Oil USA has cut p... (Below threshold)

Big Oil USA has cut production over 40% since the 1980s, capping wells from Oklahoma to Alaska and keeping them capped. For price leverage purposes. So any talk about drilling in ANWR, etc, is just rhetorical poppycock to feed the birds with.

1) Source ,please.
2) What was the then current production of the wells "capped"?
3) What is "Big Oil USA" ? Provide names and production levels.
4) What "leverage price purpose" was "Big Oil USA'(s) goal?
5) Prove how the alleged "capped" production influenced prices between 1980-7/19/08.
6) Identify the operating profit on alleged "capped production".
7) Prove that "Big Oil USA" has any control over the price of crude oil.

USA oil production graphs, ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

USA oil production graphs, etc.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/energy-a.htm

bryanD, there ain't no big ... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

bryanD, there ain't no big conspiracy in the oil biz. When new fields are opened it is not unusual to have some wells produce well over 100 barrels per day, but over time the production rate falls. Some older wells will keep producing five or ten barrels a day for many years, even decades. When lift costs are on the order of $15 per barrel and the price is only $25 or thereabouts it is hard to justify keeping them in operation. "Big Oil" typically sells fields when they get to low production rates. They have large overhead costs which make small producing wells uneconomical. A small independent can continue producing on low volume wells but even they have to stop when the cost to workover a well exceeds the near term revenue.

Once again, from the... (Below threshold)


Once again, from the grassy knoll of bryanD's imagination, we receive a "no source", completely fabricated comment about a subject he knows nothing about.

bryanD has established himself as the Oliver Stone of Wizbang. Where the story lacks certain facts that make the plot compelling and exciting (and conform to his ideology) he just makes them up. bryan's on a tear now leaving his path of prevarication from Blue to Classic, and it's only July. Sweeps month will bring us who knows what.

But back on topic:

Big Oil USA has cut production over 40% since the 1980s

It looks more like 22% according to the DOE:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalOilSupplyBarrelsperDay.xls

But what's a deviation of almost 50% among fellow travelers?

And your implication that the "cut" was to "leverage prices" (by the way bryan, what does cutting production have to do with leveraging prices?) makes no sense. (Do you understand the term "leverage"?) Or is this more polemic by cut and paste?

The United States, which controls maybe 11% of total production, has what control over worldwide production? See the link below:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentTotalOilSupplyBarrelsperDay.xls

Facts are so annoying when you are peddling conspiracy theories. But for the Bryans of the internet it is as easy as clicking that mouse that is his brain.


bryanSuch authoritat... (Below threshold)

bryan
Such authoritative sources...Stone, Sinatra and Castro would be impressed:

http://www.michaelhodges.com/

http://www.michaelhodges.com/hillary.html

The second one is funny...the very stuff of national energy policy. Your experts mirror your credibility...pure comedy.

Put this stuff on Wizbang Pop! where it belongs.


brynnD,Domestic Oi... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

brynnD,

Domestic Oil Production in the US declined in the 1980's
Why?
Windfall profits tax. It became cheeper to close down American Oil Wells than pay the tax. Now that it no more American companies can again start to produce oil, Also what ws not profitable to mine at $20 USD a barrel is good at 50-140 a barrel.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/EDF8DE04E58E4B14852570BA0048848B?OpenDocument

I'm all for just returning ... (Below threshold)
Nancy Pelosi:

I'm all for just returning to living in caves and ox-drawn carts...

Someone doesn't need to get... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Someone doesn't need to get a paycheck they just need to be heavily invested and they may volunteer.

It'd be stupid to consider anyone heavily invested in oil as not potentially biased, whether conscious or unconscious.

Whether Limbaugh is heavily invested in oil, I don't know. If he is and doesn't disclose the fact, then that's a reflection on his character.

Isn't Gore 'heavily investe... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Isn't Gore 'heavily invested' in carbon trading? Wouldn't that bias his view?

Thanks4 responding everrbud... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Thanks4 responding everrbuddy!

So we agree that domestic oil production HAS been cut back since the 1980s. And that BigOil is a capitalist enterprise. And that higher prices bring a higher return to stockholders in the enterprise.

Thus it is in the interest of Bigoil to keep the prices consumers pay as high as possible short of revolt.

Like Jay Tea's title: Grand Conspiracies or Occam's Razor. Since most Bushbots feel more comfortable within the Accidental View of History (as opposed to the Conspiratorial View), Occam's razor points to Who Benefits.

The answer is obvious.

So we agree that dome... (Below threshold)

So we agree that domestic oil production HAS been cut back since the 1980s.

Yes, but not by the margins you make up. And only because of production disincentives in the US, such as taxes and federal restrictions on available land for exploration.

And that BigOil is a capitalist enterprise.

No, it is a government owned monopoly among the ten largest oil producers in the world.

And that higher prices bring a higher return to stockholders in the enterprise.

Hmm...why don't you look that up for us, Mr. Expert. Get back to us with your "research".

Thus it is in the interest of Bigoil to keep the prices consumers pay as high as possible short of revolt.

Yes, that is what OPEC desires. Little Oil, such as Exxon, understands it is a bad policy.

Occam's razor points to Who Benefits.

Exactly, that would be OPEC and Russia. This is finally obvious for you.

Again -- I read th... (Below threshold)

Again -- I read the CNN piece. I do not see what Gore's "valid point" is supposed to be, or about what he is supposed to be "mostly right".

Or even just "a tiny bit correct".

So, again, may we have some specific clarification, please?

And no hyperbolus, please. Jay said it. Jay is the one being asked to clarify.

Acksiom, if you did the unt... (Below threshold)

Acksiom, if you did the unthinkable and actually READ the article I referred to, I spelled out just where I thought Gore make the slightest bit of sense.

I feel no compunction to repeat myself.

J.

Acksiom needs someone to ex... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Acksiom needs someone to explain to him or her why he or she should think twice about driving the Escalade to the 7/11 to pick up hot dogs and Big Gulps for dinner.

Gee, and here I thought I w... (Below threshold)

Gee, and here I thought I was being polite by not pointing out the degree to which you've backed off on your original assertion -- from "has a valid point, and is mostly right," to "a tiny bit correct in his position."

Er, no. Not even that.

Because if you meant this: "To begin to fix all the problems, Gore said, 'the answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels,'" then you're both wrong. Eth/meth/butanol etc. are carbon-based fuels, and it's a conclusion approaching unity that we're going to be relying on them for decades to come.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone here that Gore's alignment is not pro-conservationist. Gore's alignment is collectivist AGW FUADmongering in the interests of securing greater State power and authority at the expense of lessened individual Citizen liberty and self-determination. He is pushing his unhealthy and scientifically baseless low-carbon diet on a credulous public not for their benefit but for his own, and that of his self-denoted elitist ruling classmates.

I'm all for conservation. But not at the expense of self-determination, nor at the expansion of the power of the State.

There is not even ONE SENTENCE in that article where Gore even just approaches being right, including the only other likely prospect for your claims, to wit: "The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 a gallon gasoline,"

Even that is wrong via mischaracterizing 'A' way as being 'THE' way. Opening the way to more drilling in usa territory WOULD bring gas prices down because of the cascade effect on the oil and others futures market on through to actual production budgeting, costs, and finally consumer pricing.

But Gore can't say that. And we all know why.

No, Jay. Not even the slightest bit right. Wrong, all the way, through and through.

And finally, dude? It's not like I'm trolling. I'm just behaviorally reaffirming the validity of the view that Gore's outlook, position, and claims are by-default to be considered completely and utterly meritless and wrong from the beginning, to the point where any statement giving him even the slightest amount of credit for being 'right' should be rigorously examined and tested.

Yours fails. That's all. So chill, because there's no need -- other than falling into the insecure trap of needing to always be right -- to get all personally shirty with me for politely, socratically, pointing that out.

Isn't Gore 'heavil... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
Isn't Gore 'heavily invested' in carbon trading? Wouldn't that bias his view?
Absolutely.

In fact, Gore was originally an oil man. I would venture he never got rid of much of his oil investments. He benefits from both ends.

The oil industry and environmentalists both want high oil prices. What they argue about is supply. But considering domestically how little we produce there's plenty of room for increasing domestic production while environmentalists get their decreased consumption. So on that point, the oil industry and environmentalists won't be on a collision course for some time.

Reminds me of illegal immigration where despite what the bulk of either party's members want, there's an influential segment on both sides that like it the way it is. So nothing happens.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy