OT - Can we finally call it BS and move on

Voted Worlds #1 Most Loonatic Fanbase

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Andrew » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:28 am

Eric wrote:
Andrew wrote:Here in Tasmania we CAN'T go outside for more than 15 mins in the summer sun as we DO get our asses burned off.

It is legislated throughout the coutnry and kids wear protective gear while playing outside during the summer and as Tasmania is closer still to the ozone hole and the summer sun strength without any polution layer to protect us, we literally fry.

Kids die each year from heat stroke from being left i cars by dickhead parents as the temp can go from 70F to 130+ in a matter of 10 mins due to the sun strength.

None of this happened when I was a kid.

So things are pretty real for us.


Pretty sure you couldn't leave kids in a hot car when you were a kid either.....


Common sense of course. I was just showing how quickly it takes effect these days.
User avatar
Andrew
Administrator
 
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Postby Andrew » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:30 am

Pacfanweb wrote:
Andrew wrote:Here in Tasmania we CAN'T go outside for more than 15 mins in the summer sun as we DO get our asses burned off.

It is legislated throughout the coutnry and kids wear protective gear while playing outside during the summer and as Tasmania is closer still to the ozone hole and the summer sun strength without any polution layer to protect us, we literally fry.

Kids die each year from heat stroke from being left i cars by dickhead parents as the temp can go from 70F to 130+ in a matter of 10 mins due to the sun strength.

None of this happened when I was a kid.

So things are pretty real for us.

With all due respect, Andrew....yes, all of that happened when you were a kid. You just didn't hear about it.


I didn't realize you grew up in Tasmania! :roll:
Perhaps you will give me a little credit for being aware of my own situation and remembering how I grew up and what happened. The simple fact is the burn rate these days is far greater then when I was a kid.
User avatar
Andrew
Administrator
 
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Postby JrnyScarab » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:03 am

Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:

By the way, I am an Independent who never voted for a Democrat for president until this year. 8 years of Bush was too much for me.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Rick » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:09 am

JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby JrnyScarab » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:27 am

Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Rick, Lindsey Williams is a quack. I used to follow him a long time ago. He used to say that we were on the verge of a huge food crises back in the 80's that never materialized. If you want accurate factual information on the oil situation, please check these sites: www.peakoil.com and www.theoildrum.com. Check out the discussion boards and you'll see that Lindsey is full of shit.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Voyager » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:33 am

Andrew wrote:Here in Tasmania we CAN'T go outside for more than 15 mins in the summer sun as we DO get our asses burned off.

It is legislated throughout the coutnry and kids wear protective gear while playing outside during the summer and as Tasmania is closer still to the ozone hole and the summer sun strength without any polution layer to protect us, we literally fry.

Kids die each year from heat stroke from being left i cars by dickhead parents as the temp can go from 70F to 130+ in a matter of 10 mins due to the sun strength.

None of this happened when I was a kid.

So things are pretty real for us.


What is the temperature there in Tasmania this time of year Andrew?

It's been around 95F/35C and humid in central Illinois where I am. But the burn rate here doesn't seem as bad as what you are saying it is there. I guess our ozone layer here mus still be intact pretty good. I live there about half the time - LOL!

:roll: :lol:
User avatar
Voyager
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: BumFunk Egypt

Postby Monker » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:44 am

Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Rick » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:49 am

Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby swataz » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:58 am

Perspective is always called for folks. In the billions of years this earth has been here, I think OUR lifetimes and even a couple of centuries prior is a very small sample of the cyclical change that can and will occur on a planetary scale.

Climate change? Sure, it has happened and always will. And too bad for us if we get affected but we can either adapt or die.

But sorry, not buying that it's us.
User avatar
swataz
LP
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:35 am

Postby Pacfanweb » Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:59 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Pacfanweb wrote:
Monker wrote:And, yes, T Bone Pickens is smart enough to have already thought of this, which is why I repeated.

No, he's not. He's a hustler. He knows a chance to make a buck when he sees it.


Just to make sure I'm following your reasoning....
You want eco-friendly technology left entirely up to the free market, but when a businessman actually puts something on the table, you dismiss him as a "hustler."
You sound increasingly like a defender of the status quo. Period.

Nope, but I don't care who puts something on the table if it's something that won't work. If T-Boone puts something on the table that actually is viable, then I'd listen. But he's putting wind power out there because he stands to make a ton of cash on it. And honestly, I don't care about that, again...if it's credible technology. And wind power is not.

Pacfanweb wrote:
Monker wrote:What I come up with is a bunch of propaganda about oil reserves in Colorado and SNOPES discrediting it as exagerations based on outdated surveys and ignoring more recent information.

Ah, Snopes. The be-all, end-all of info. Not. They are good for certain things, political items like this aren't one of them.

I'd argue that Snopes was more fair and balanced during the presidential campaign than all of the media.
Sounds like a cop-out to me

I don't read Snopes much, particularly during an election. But they are FAR from clear or even in agreement about this topic.
Pacfanweb
45 RPM
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:20 am

Postby JrnyScarab » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:00 pm

Rick wrote:
Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.


Here's a couple of posts from the Oil Drum site in August 2008: "Pastor Lindsey Williams is back on Jeff Rense Show... and now he's predicting that oil would fall to 50$ per barrel, coz the Powers-that-be are going to open up 2 Super-Giant Oil-fields, one in Indonesia and the other on the North Slope of Russia. This would in-turn bankrupt the Arab World, and they would be forced to dump all the American GreenBacks in their possession, and that would cause the US Dollar to collapse..."

"Lindsey was on Alex Jones stating that he and his family were threatened because of all he was making public about the NWO (New World Order)... but then he supposedly called back the Illuminati oil man up on the North Slope and the guy revealed this info to him. Alex's other guest didn't buy Lindsey's claims."

Can you say looney :roll:
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Pacfanweb » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:06 pm

Andrew wrote:
Pacfanweb wrote:
Andrew wrote:Here in Tasmania we CAN'T go outside for more than 15 mins in the summer sun as we DO get our asses burned off.

It is legislated throughout the coutnry and kids wear protective gear while playing outside during the summer and as Tasmania is closer still to the ozone hole and the summer sun strength without any polution layer to protect us, we literally fry.

Kids die each year from heat stroke from being left i cars by dickhead parents as the temp can go from 70F to 130+ in a matter of 10 mins due to the sun strength.

None of this happened when I was a kid.

So things are pretty real for us.

With all due respect, Andrew....yes, all of that happened when you were a kid. You just didn't hear about it.


I didn't realize you grew up in Tasmania! :roll:
Perhaps you will give me a little credit for being aware of my own situation and remembering how I grew up and what happened. The simple fact is the burn rate these days is far greater then when I was a kid.

Again, with all due respect, based on what? Because nobody talked about a "burn rate" when you were a kid? Guess what, there probably was no such thing before someone made up man-made climate change.

And I'm SURE you "remember" things differently, as do I....because they WERE. They climate wasn't what was different, though. As I said, it was the information, and how quickly it was gathered and distributed.

But since there are no studies about how long it took for someone to burn back then vs. now, there's no way to prove/disprove the current "theories", is there? But "they say" it's worse now, so it must be, right?

And yes, leaving a kid in a car years ago was bad, too. Even if there WAS more UV getting through, that wouldn't be any different now. That has only to do with the heat, and it is correct to say that dumbasses did it back then like they still do now.
Pacfanweb
45 RPM
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:20 am

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:38 pm

Once again, a conservative's opinion becomes "fact" when, in fact, there are no facts nor reasonable facsimiles of facts that would make their "factual" statements actual facts. Turning your back on real science and actual evidence doesn't make what you want to believe true.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby StoneCold » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:12 pm

I think we'll nuke each other off this planet long before Global Warming/Cooling or the next Ice Age does it.
User avatar
StoneCold
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6310
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:32 pm

Postby Rick » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:14 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.


Here's a couple of posts from the Oil Drum site in August 2008: "Pastor Lindsey Williams is back on Jeff Rense Show... and now he's predicting that oil would fall to 50$ per barrel, coz the Powers-that-be are going to open up 2 Super-Giant Oil-fields, one in Indonesia and the other on the North Slope of Russia. This would in-turn bankrupt the Arab World, and they would be forced to dump all the American GreenBacks in their possession, and that would cause the US Dollar to collapse..."

"Lindsey was on Alex Jones stating that he and his family were threatened because of all he was making public about the NWO (New World Order)... but then he supposedly called back the Illuminati oil man up on the North Slope and the guy revealed this info to him. Alex's other guest didn't buy Lindsey's claims."

Can you say looney :roll:


Anyone's predictions can fail. His life experiences, however, can not. Still not sure I believe what he says, but they're points to ponder.

The big "what if" is, what if he's right about the northern slope of Alaska and the claims he made about why they're not pumping oil from there? If there's one thing that's a sure truth, the almighty dollar can cause people to do anything. Even our government.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:32 pm

Pacfanweb wrote:Nope, but I don't care who puts something on the table if it's something that won't work. If T-Boone puts something on the table that actually is viable, then I'd listen. But he's putting wind power out there because he stands to make a ton of cash on it. And honestly, I don't care about that, again...if it's credible technology. And wind power is not.


Sounds to me like you saw wind turbines in the omnipresent TV ads and immediately wrote it off.
Natural gas and solar also figure into the plan.
From everything I've read, it's pretty credible.
Sure, Pickens stands to make money hand over fist.
So what?
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby JrnyScarab » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:36 pm

Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.


Here's a couple of posts from the Oil Drum site in August 2008: "Pastor Lindsey Williams is back on Jeff Rense Show... and now he's predicting that oil would fall to 50$ per barrel, coz the Powers-that-be are going to open up 2 Super-Giant Oil-fields, one in Indonesia and the other on the North Slope of Russia. This would in-turn bankrupt the Arab World, and they would be forced to dump all the American GreenBacks in their possession, and that would cause the US Dollar to collapse..."

"Lindsey was on Alex Jones stating that he and his family were threatened because of all he was making public about the NWO (New World Order)... but then he supposedly called back the Illuminati oil man up on the North Slope and the guy revealed this info to him. Alex's other guest didn't buy Lindsey's claims."

Can you say looney :roll:


Anyone's predictions can fail. His life experiences, however, can not. Still not sure I believe what he says, but they're points to ponder.

The big "what if" is, what if he's right about the northern slope of Alaska and the claims he made about why they're not pumping oil from there? If there's one thing that's a sure truth, the almighty dollar can cause people to do anything. Even our government.


Why have none of the 20,000 or so people (estimate from the Oil Drum) who worked on this project come forth to verify his claims. Just too fishy to me. It would be silly to not pump oil from there. You mean the oil companies would rather spend boatloads of money drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico waters to find oil when they know this oil exists and can be had more easily? I for one do not think the government could do this without a big stink from big oil.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Rick » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:43 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.


Here's a couple of posts from the Oil Drum site in August 2008: "Pastor Lindsey Williams is back on Jeff Rense Show... and now he's predicting that oil would fall to 50$ per barrel, coz the Powers-that-be are going to open up 2 Super-Giant Oil-fields, one in Indonesia and the other on the North Slope of Russia. This would in-turn bankrupt the Arab World, and they would be forced to dump all the American GreenBacks in their possession, and that would cause the US Dollar to collapse..."

"Lindsey was on Alex Jones stating that he and his family were threatened because of all he was making public about the NWO (New World Order)... but then he supposedly called back the Illuminati oil man up on the North Slope and the guy revealed this info to him. Alex's other guest didn't buy Lindsey's claims."

Can you say looney :roll:


Anyone's predictions can fail. His life experiences, however, can not. Still not sure I believe what he says, but they're points to ponder.

The big "what if" is, what if he's right about the northern slope of Alaska and the claims he made about why they're not pumping oil from there? If there's one thing that's a sure truth, the almighty dollar can cause people to do anything. Even our government.


Why have none of the 20,000 or so people (estimate from the Oil Drum) who worked on this project come forth to verify his claims. Just too fishy to me. It would be silly to not pump oil from there. You mean the oil companies would rather spend boatloads of money drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico waters to find oil when they know this oil exists and can be had more easily? I for one do not think the government could do this without a big stink from big oil.


If it ever comes to light that there's a huge oil reserve in the northern slope of Alaska, you will remember this discussion. :lol:

I agree though, that's a stretch, for sure.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Sarah » Sun Jun 28, 2009 4:50 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future"

Wow it really, really breaks my heart that some people think this way.
Sarah
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:34 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Classicrockr » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:32 pm

Last semester, I had to do a debate on this topic for my Master's degree in Environmental Health. I was on the side saying GW is not man made. Data we discovered was that mankind is responsible for 1% of the total GW. Periodically, the planet goes into a warming/cooling phase like what is happening now.

Throughout time, there have been periods in which the temperature levels met or exceeded the levels of today. Between 900-1300 AD are commonly referred to as the “Medieval Warm period or “Little Ice Age”. In approximately 1,000 A.D., unusual warmth allowed for the settlement of Greenland and Iceland. It is estimated that during this time, temperature levels may have been nearly 0.3 degrees Centigrade warmer than they are now in the 20th century. Shortly after this period, from approximately 1300 A.D. to 1850 A.D., European regional evidence such as soil core samples and historical records show that a “Little Ice Age” existed during which much colder conditions existed than were present during the “Medieval Warm period”. These changes occurred without the presence of CO2 from increased human activity.

During the warming phase, oceans heat excessively, releasing CO2 from melted snow & ocean water into the atmosphere. Eventually, the moisture falls as snow, capturing the CO2 & re-depositing it all over the globe. The common argument is over how the atmosphere is heated - it has been scientifically proven that the oceans heat up, then the atmosphere does. Glacirers melt from the bottom up because the warm ocean water melts them.

Another thing is that periodically, our atmosphere is stretched & holes appear. This stretching is caused by a "Milankovitch cycle". This happens when the earth's axis tilts/wobbles slightly more than usual and occurs approximately every 10,000 to 20,000 years. This can be linked to ice age activities in that the last known ice age ended approximately 14,000 years ago. The wobbles in the earth’s axis, along with its distance from the sun during the wobbles is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the increases and decreases in the Earth’s temperature ranges.


I learned so much by doing this debate. This has happened before many times, but it's just now that we finally have the technology to start tracking it, so everyone's up in arms about it. GW is a political thing, not man made. We're doing more damage to the environment with landfills & deforestation than we are with "man-made" GW.
Classicrockr
Ol' 78
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:50 am
Location: Richlands, NC

Postby JrnyScarab » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:35 pm

Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Rick wrote:
Monker wrote:
Rick wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
Monker wrote:If we relied totaly on domestic oil, I believe the supply would run out in less then 10yrs....and that is VERY optimistic. I also believe that spending money to "go get it", "drill baby drill" is better spent in looking at alternate fuels and limiting our need for oil in the first place.


Monker gets it right. The total estimated available oil is 1-3 trillion barrels. We have used up the first trillion barrels in roughly 100 years. Due to exponential growth in population and the growth of countries like India and China, even the most optimistic oil experts say that demand will outstrip supply in no more than 30 years tops. These are the optimists. Some say that we are already at that point and the recession/depression has killed enough demand to put off the problem a bit longer. Running out of oil is not the immediate problem. Not having enough for everyone is. How are you naysayers going to like paying $10 a gallon or more for gas. You guys will be the first ones saying "why didn't anyone warn us or DO something!" The time is now to find other means of transportation other than gasoline powered vehicles.

I was showing a guy I work with the new Tesla electric car that goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, has a range of 300 miles, plugs in to any outlet and can do a quick 80% charge in 45 minutes. His response was "I'll NEVER buy one of those even if I can afford it. I WANT MY GASOLINE POWERED TRUCK. Screw the environment, nobody is going to tell ME what to drive!" Of course, he is a Republican. Only cares about himself. You know, everyone should be responsible for themselves and the government should stay out of our lives. I asked him if he thought that reducing pollution is a good thing and he said "I don't care. I won't be here if there is a problem in the future" :roll:


Everyone watch this guy. It's an hour and 15 minutes long, and it takes him most of that time to get to his point, but when he gets there, you will be :shock: ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... isis&hl=en

This was posted previously by Kate.


Sounds like an hour long comeercial for his book to me.


Yeah, I kinda got that same vibe, but I can't help but believe he's got some factual info in his assertions.


Here's a couple of posts from the Oil Drum site in August 2008: "Pastor Lindsey Williams is back on Jeff Rense Show... and now he's predicting that oil would fall to 50$ per barrel, coz the Powers-that-be are going to open up 2 Super-Giant Oil-fields, one in Indonesia and the other on the North Slope of Russia. This would in-turn bankrupt the Arab World, and they would be forced to dump all the American GreenBacks in their possession, and that would cause the US Dollar to collapse..."

"Lindsey was on Alex Jones stating that he and his family were threatened because of all he was making public about the NWO (New World Order)... but then he supposedly called back the Illuminati oil man up on the North Slope and the guy revealed this info to him. Alex's other guest didn't buy Lindsey's claims."

Can you say looney :roll:


Anyone's predictions can fail. His life experiences, however, can not. Still not sure I believe what he says, but they're points to ponder.

The big "what if" is, what if he's right about the northern slope of Alaska and the claims he made about why they're not pumping oil from there? If there's one thing that's a sure truth, the almighty dollar can cause people to do anything. Even our government.


Why have none of the 20,000 or so people (estimate from the Oil Drum) who worked on this project come forth to verify his claims. Just too fishy to me. It would be silly to not pump oil from there. You mean the oil companies would rather spend boatloads of money drilling deep in the Gulf of Mexico waters to find oil when they know this oil exists and can be had more easily? I for one do not think the government could do this without a big stink from big oil.


If it ever comes to light that there's a huge oil reserve in the northern slope of Alaska, you will remember this discussion. :lol:

I agree though, that's a stretch, for sure.


Yes, I will remember. And eat crow if I have to! :lol:
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Eric » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:23 am

Monker wrote:

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.


Or we could just drill, or use clean coal technologies...or use nuclear energy. Or use everything/all of the above to get off mid-east oil.
Eric
Eric
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3934
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:51 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:47 am

Eric wrote:
Monker wrote:

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.


Or we could just drill, or use clean coal technologies...or use nuclear energy. Or use everything/all of the above to get off mid-east oil.


I agree with both of your statements. We have a lot (not enough to support us 100%) of oil in the US, but we are NOT ALLOWED to drill for it.

We have MORE coal that we need, but we are NOT ALLOWED to use it.

We can build nuclear plants, we can harness wind, solar, wave power, water...you name it, but we are NOT ALLOWED to do so. Why? Well the nuclear plants bring visions of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (forget that reactor technology has grown by leaps and bounds), solar takes up too much space to generate the megawatts needed depriving some cricket of it's prefered home, the wind mills aggravate Ted Kennedy's sense of piece when we try and build off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, and water, well you cannot build dams that block the runs of fish (Though we could build SMART dams that allow fish passage easily.

It's all a con job. The government, be it Bush or Obama, Democrat of Republican doesn't give a rats ass about the environment, or energy independence, it's all a put up job to control US. Tax us to control our money, and put up bullshit statistics to control the flow of energy, and in doing so they control us.

It's not liberty, it's not freedom, it's control. Welcome to 1984. Big Brother is watching, and he is most certainly controlling us.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:17 am

Eric wrote:or use clean coal technologies...


No such thing.

Eric wrote:or use nuclear energy.


Can we store the spent fuel rods at your house?
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby RossValoryRocks » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:21 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Eric wrote:or use clean coal technologies...


No such thing.

Eric wrote:or use nuclear energy.


Can we store the spent fuel rods at your house?


Talking out of your ass again (other than the spent fuel rods).

We can burn coal now and have the discharge from the stack be almost completely free of pollutants.

I swear you are contrary just to be so and to get a rise out of people.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Voyager » Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:32 am

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

Global warming alarmists out in cold
Andrew Bolt

April 29, 2009 12:00am

IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.

And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists.

Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.

Doubt it? Then here's a test.

Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming.

And if your "proofs" indeed turn out to be false, don't get angry with me.

Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?

So let's see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.

MYTH 1

THE WORLD IS WARMING

Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week "temperatures have dropped" since - "both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites". In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)

Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.

But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?

MYTH 2

THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING

Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.

Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.

As for the Arctic, wrong again.

The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years.

Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

MYTH 3

WE'VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT

Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we've had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not.

As the university's press release says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.

"A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia."

MYTH 4

OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER

Wrong. The alleged "record" temperature Melbourne set in January - 46.4 degrees - was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)

And here's another curious thing: Despite all this warming we're alleged to have caused, Victoria's highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.

South Australia's hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW's high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.

What's more, not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.

MYTH 5

THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER

Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.

Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling . . ."

MYTH 6

THE SEAS ARE RISING

Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.

That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.

But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.

Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.

Venice is still above water.

MYTH 7

CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE

Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.

His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man's gases: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

MYTH 8

THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING

Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white.

But he then had to admit it had made a "surprising" recovery.

Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's Great Barrier Reef could die within a month".

But he later admitted this bleaching had "minimal impact". Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef.

But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery", with "abundant corals re-established in a single year". The reef is blooming.

MYTH 9

OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER

Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018.

Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria's snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.

MYTH 10

TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE

Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a "region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts".

Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?

And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can't actually see.

Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith - bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.

Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.

Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

So stop this crazy panic.

First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it?

Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn't been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.

Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof -- the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don't you think?


:shock:
User avatar
Voyager
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: BumFunk Egypt

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:13 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:Talking out of your ass again (other than the spent fuel rods). We can burn coal now and have the discharge from the stack be almost completely free of pollutants.

If that's the case, care to explain why there’s not a single US commercial clean coal power plant in existence - despite billions in subsidies being thrown at it?
As the Duke Energy CEO frankly admitted on 60 minutes: "We have not invested any dollars in the technology, per se...."
It's one big PR front to run out the clock, as Big Coal goes about business as usual.
And even *IF* the kinks are worked out, and there aren’t unforeseen environmental consequences of pumping pressurized CO2 directly into the earth (a contentious issue by itself), there’s the little issue of strip mining practices.
Some of which, in addition to the usual host of climate change concerns, poison waterways.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find even the most bought-off coal exec describing what happened in Tennessee recently as "clean."

Image

Image
RossValoryRocks wrote:I swear you are contrary just to be so and to get a rise out of people.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people.
Most people recognize a PT Barnum like scam when they see it.
Gotta love the irony of someone offering grave warnings about 1984, while simultaneously pledging support for environmental policies couched in Orwellian oxymoronic doubletalk.
Clean Coal is not clean anyway you look at it.
Now go on, threaten to hunt me down and kill me with a military issue tactical knife, or whatever it is you usually do.
Last edited by The_Noble_Cause on Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby Monker » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:43 am

Eric wrote:
Monker wrote:

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.


Or we could just drill, or use clean coal technologies...or use nuclear energy. Or use everything/all of the above to get off mid-east oil.


I was was taling about a gasoline tax...nice of you to take it out of context.

I'm sure you realize that we do not have coal powered cars, or nuclear.

And, there is not enough oil in the US to make us not dependant.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Eric » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:51 pm

Monker wrote:
Eric wrote:
Monker wrote:

It needs to be done...not just for the environment, but I'm tired of our energy depending on gurus in the middle east.
...It should be a national security initiative - one Republicans should support.


Or we could just drill, or use clean coal technologies...or use nuclear energy. Or use everything/all of the above to get off mid-east oil.


I was was taling about a gasoline tax...nice of you to take it out of context.

I'm sure you realize that we do not have coal powered cars, or nuclear.

And, there is not enough oil in the US to make us not dependant.


Sorry....I was just using that part of your post to make my point.

I'm not sure we don't have enough oil. We need to drill to see.
Eric
Eric
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3934
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:51 am

Previous

Return to Journey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests