Rod Speed wrote:

"Mr. Sen is famous for his assertion that famines do not occur in
democracies. "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the
world in a functioning democracy," he wrote in 'Democracy as
Freedom'."

He's just plain wrong.

For this sort of thinking, Amartya Kumar Sen was awarded the 1998
Nobel Prize in Economics.

Nope, not for that steaming turd he wasnt.

Uh, yes. For exactly that:

"Amartya Kumar Sen is an economist best known for his work on famine, Human
development theory, welfare economics, and the underlying causes of poverty
and hunger. When the world was talking of free market economy, Prof. Sen
emphasised the need for giving a human face to development. Amartya Sen is
one of those few economists who talk of political economy of hunger. He
received the ... Noble prize for economics... for his work in mathematical
economics in 1998."



If you have an alternative to the assertion, please share it with us.

Just did.

Okay, show us a famine that has ever taken place in the history of the world
in a functioning democracy. There have been food shortages in democracies,
true. There may have even been widespread hunger. But never a famine.

The ball's in your court. Instead of flatly denying what many can
demonstrate as an obvious truth, show us an example.

Just one.




As you can see, hydrocarbons account for 2.48 CMOs,

But oil and gas doesnt dominate electric power generation. You are
wrong.

I said "hydrocarbons."

Electric power generation in the United States by source:
Coal - 50%
Natural gas - 18%
Oil - 3%
Total hydrocarbons - 71%
Nuclear - 20%
Hydropower - 7%
http://www.data360.org/graph_group.a...h_Group_Id=360



Nuclear for a tiny fraction, probably even less than the use of
charcoal.

Not in some countrys like France and Japan.

France generates 78% of its electricity from nuclear.

Japan is a little different (Japan alone accounts for half of Australia's
coal exports)
Coal - 19%
Oil - 18%
Natural gas - 20%
Total hydrocarbon - 57%
Nuclear - 32%

Both France and Japan have substantial generation capability using nuclear
energy.


Heh! Ronald Reagan said that those who say there are no simple
solutions have just not tried hard enough.

And he ended up with Alzhiemers. You're well along that line.

Can't find fault with the message, so attack the messenger. Such
argumentation techniques demonstrate the paucity of arguments.


Do you realize that over 40% of our offshore potential can't even be
explored or tested?

That aint the easiest to find, stupid.

You're correct. The "easiest" to find is that which seeps out of the ground
as in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859 or the La Brea Tar Pits today, or
where seams of coal break the surface. Offshore exploration is, however,
almost trivial. The company I worked for, Western Geophysical, was selling
offshore seismic survey results at $20/mile in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course
that was back when $20 was a lot of money - they're probably charging $30
today.



And you completely mangled that claim about oil and gas and
electricity generation.

I never said "oil and gas." I said "hydrocarbons." Hydrocarbons account for
83% of the world's energy use (not just electricity) - 71% in the U.S.

I may no longer be in the oil bidness (as we say in Texas), but I remember
the difference between "hydrocarbons" and "oil and gas."