Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 2:14 PM
"So, let me see if I have this correct. You are claiming that we have more than 150 years of data with a high enough certainty to detect changes that measure something on the order of two percent? " The increase has been around 8 C and, yes, you can look at the trends here http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ with 95% confidence intervals shown.
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 1:17 PM
"Which is it? The cycles or the naturally released CO2 driving glaciation." Why is it either/or? The cycles initiated it but CO2 then took over and drove/enchanced it. In current warming, CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. The Milankovitch-initiated climate change took thousands of year, we are seeing those kinds of changes now in 150 years.
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 12:56 PM
"It seems we are already getting shale oil by fracking! As in North Dakota, grasshopper!" You are confused. Fracking works in oil shale--usually called "tight oil". This is not to be confused with kerogen--which is sometimes referred to as "shale oil"
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 12:23 PM
Ransom states: "Seriously, I’m not making this up..." Yes you are. The Milankovitch cycles were described early in the 20th Century. They describe three variations on the earth's orbit which lead to glacial periods every 400K years. But the effect is relatively weak and the cooling and warming of the climate was primarily driven by CO2 naturally released/absorbed from the oceans. The CO2 we are now emitting into the atmosphere easily overwhelms any effect of the Milankovitch cycles and will be the primary driver of climate over the next centuries. See: "A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation" http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 12:11 PM
Another term than Ransom should be familiar with is energy return on energy invested (EROEI). How much energy does it take to extract the energy. Liquid petroleum has EROEI of about 20:1—you get 20 times more energy for each unit of energy you invest. Kerogen is about 4:1 so that any comparison of the liquid petroleum reserves of Saudi Arabia to Shale oil needs to take this into account? He also ignores the issue of water, current methods of extracting shale oil require lots of water—as he should know, water is not plentiful in thes area of CO that contain the shale oil.
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 11:55 AM
"your inane drivel." Translation: I can't dispute the data so I'll call him names.
In response to:

The Best of Comrades

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Mar 24, 2013 11:01 AM
BTW, John, since you are so vigilant on noting tax increases caused by the expiration of temporary provisions like the SS tax holiday, I am surprised that you didn't write a column about the expiration of the tax relief revisions in the 2008 stimulus plan. These tax cuts amounted to over $116 billion for individual tax payers and they expired in 2011.
"...Meanwhile the pressure on prices is only growing more intense. Hospitals, squeezed by lower government payments, are squeezing companies in turn, refusing to pay more for a new product that is only slightly better than the old version." http://www.economist.com/node/21528644 These complex market factors are beyond Pavlich's comprehension.
As a piece in The Economist shows, the medical device industry is facing a number of challenges and the device tax is not one of the big ones: "America's new health-care law includes a 2.3% tax on medical devices, but this is trivial compared with other shifts. Health plans are forcing patients to pay a larger share of costs, so those who do not need a device urgently are slow to buy them, says Matthew Dodds of Citigroup. Firms used to boost sales by wooing doctors, but doctors are now increasingly employed by hospitals and companies themselves are adopting stricter ethics rules...."
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2012/09/numbers_show_aca_not_responsib.html
Martin Rothenberg, President and CEO of device maker Glottal Enterprises: "let's just look at the numbers. Our company is currently putting out a new, unique medical device with a wide potential market among speech pathologists and otolaryngologists that will sell for about $350. The tax will add at most about $8 to the price. In fact, since approximately half of our sales are outside the United States and therefore exempt from the tax, the tax on U.S. sales would be covered by a price increase of about $4...If our new device proves effective and we market it effectively, this small increase in cost will have zero effect on sales. It would surely not lead us to lay off employees or shift to overseas production."
Previous 31 - 40 Next