# Independence (Day) from fossil fuels



## Dot Com

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...
Supply over 100 years of electricity to the entire nation
Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption
Provide over 2,000 trillion cubic feet of substitute natural gas  lasting a century  at present rates of usage

Coal has been and will continue to be the steady workhorse for our electricity supply. And, through the process of coal conversion it can also help relieve our oil and natural gas constraints.  Unlike any other nation, Americas coal creates an energy advantage that is abundant, secure and uniquely ours.     
Yes, America is the Saudi Arabia of Coal - Coal Can Do That


Step one would be to quarantine the Lefties of 'Big Green.'


----------



## Dr.House

Why are most of the 0bama stickers on SUVs?

Granted there are a lot less of those stickers (and a lot more scrape-off resedue), but still...

You guys talk a good game, though....lol


----------



## Dot Com

Do you have a car that runs on natural gas and how eager do you think the coal concerns are to install the necessary equipment to "scrub" the waste clean that they spew out such as mercury? Will the Republicans embrace EPA regulations? LOLOL

After Long Battle, EPA to Unveil Rules for Cutting Smog from Coal Plants | Reuters


> *Power plants are the country's largest source of sulfur dioxide and mercury in addition to being the biggest stationary source of nitrogen oxide*, McCarthy said. Her agency figures that the mix of smog, soot and other toxic pollutants contributes to one in 20 deaths occurring prematurely nationwide.


----------



## Dot Com

Of course conservatives won't flinch when it comes to sending troops into the Persian Gulf (I've been there)  area to secure the transport route of Arabian oil and bankrolling monarchies in the process.


----------



## westwall

Yes, just imagine if we could get the leftists to quit squandering money on horribly inefficient enrgy plans like wind energy.  Solar is fine for small installations like I have at home but on a large scale they become horribly inefficient.  Coal is the cheapest best and most efficient source of energy in the whole world.  With modern technology it is no more polluting then natural gas and forget about the CO2 nonsense.  

CO2 is NECCESSARY and NOT A POLLUTANT.  That is a fraud.  The more CO2 the better plants grow.  Look at the fossils of long ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher then today....everything was bigger, the plants, the animals, the insects, everything.  It was a paradise.


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> Of course conservatives won't flinch when it comes to sending troops into the Persian Gulf (I've been there)  area to secure the transport route of Arabian oil and bankrolling monarchies in the process.






Yes and your leftists demagogues shut down domestic oil production and give it to foreign countries like your pal Obama did with Brazil.  Doesn't Soros own a huge chunk of Petrobras?  Connection?  Nahhh that would be too easy.


----------



## Dr.House

Come on, tree-huggers!

Get in your VOLTs and convoy on down to Washington DC...

You haven't had a good protest since your loss in Wisconsin...

Do it!


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> Yes, just imagine if we could get the leftists to quit squandering money on horribly inefficient enrgy plans like wind energy.  Solar is fine for small installations like I have at home but on a large scale they become horribly inefficient.  Coal is the cheapest best and most efficient source of energy in the whole world.  With modern technology it is no more polluting then natural gas and forget about the CO2 nonsense.
> 
> CO2 is NECCESSARY and NOT A POLLUTANT.  That is a fraud.  The more CO2 the better plants grow.  Look at the fossils of long ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher then today....everything was bigger, the plants, the animals, the insects, everything.  It was a paradise.


So power companies and republicans are ready to embrace clean air regulations? You're funny 


Dot Com said:


> Do you have a car that runs on natural gas and how eager do you think the coal concerns are to install the necessary equipment to "scrub" the waste clean that they spew out such as mercury? Will the Republicans embrace EPA regulations? LOLOL
> 
> After Long Battle, EPA to Unveil Rules for Cutting Smog from Coal Plants | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> *Power plants are the country's largest source of sulfur dioxide and mercury in addition to being the biggest stationary source of nitrogen oxide*, McCarthy said. Her agency figures that the mix of smog, soot and other toxic pollutants contributes to one in 20 deaths occurring prematurely nationwide.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dot Com

I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?


----------



## Dr.House

I'll take the left seriously when they start walking the walk....


----------



## Dot Com

I'm sure they do everything in hopes of gaining your approval.  HEY!!! Who you gonna vote for, Romney or Bachmann?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> Of course conservatives won't flinch when it comes to sending troops into the Persian Gulf (I've been there)  area to secure the transport route of Arabian oil and bankrolling monarchies in the process.



The coal is right here, Dotty.

"Although 90 percent of the country's coal reserves are concentrated in 10 states, coal in mined in 27 states and can be found in even more. Montana has the most coal, 25 percent of demonstrated reserves. Wyoming, third among states with the most coal, is first in coal output, accounting for 18 percent of annual production."
27 Coal-Mining States

27 states....that means only 30 other states for the Obamunists....

Just jettison this President and untie the hands of the American people.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dot com said:


> i notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the middle east. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like wahabbist's in saudi. Of course the repubs have no problem w/ islam?



c-o-a-l i-s  r-i-g-h-t h-e-r-e...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> I'm sure they do everything in hopes of gaining your approval.  HEY!!! Who you gonna vote for, Romney or Bachmann?



Great idea! Change the subject!


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> dot com said:
> 
> 
> 
> i notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the middle east. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like wahabbist's in saudi. Of course the repubs have no problem w/ islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c-o-a-l i-s  r-i-g-h-t h-e-r-e...
Click to expand...


coal is also a fossil fuel and you failed to address my previous post:


> Power plants are *the country's largest source of sulfur dioxide and mercury in addition to being the biggest stationary source of nitrogen oxide*, McCarthy said. Her agency figures that the mix of smog, soot and other toxic pollutants contributes to one in 20 deaths occurring prematurely nationwide.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



Oh dam -- I don't know -- why don't you give us the exhaustive list of "alternative sources" and then I'll tell you.. 

You might want to read this first.. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/169880-very-high-efficiency-solar-2.html#post3740281

The entire list of "alternatives" has severe restrictions and problems. SOME of these problems have environmental consequences. But By all means -- educate us.. Don't make us do all the work...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dot com said:
> 
> 
> 
> i notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the middle east. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like wahabbist's in saudi. Of course the repubs have no problem w/ islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c-o-a-l i-s  r-i-g-h-t h-e-r-e...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> coal is also a fossil fuel and you failed to address my previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> Power plants are *the country's largest source of sulfur dioxide and mercury in addition to being the biggest stationary source of nitrogen oxide*, McCarthy said. Her agency figures that the mix of smog, soot and other toxic pollutants contributes to one in 20 deaths occurring prematurely nationwide.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Haven't you noticed that these studies are rarely worth much more than the paper they are written on.

I have difficulty believing their import, and won't, until the undue influence of Big Green is obviated.

"...Her agency figures that the mix of smog, soot and other toxic pollutants contributes to one in 20 deaths ..."
These folks also say CO2 is a pollutant.
Did you notice that the Chinese aren't dropping like flies?

If you are interested in broadening your horizon, you might take a look at James Delingpole's "Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors."

Green on the outside, but red on the inside.


----------



## JiggsCasey

PoliticalChic said:


> I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'
> 
> The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...



Whenever a poster starts with "liberals = bad; cons = good," rest assured some horseshit is about to follow. This one didn't disappoint. 

Every time I see you contribute here, junior Coulter, I feel dumber for having absorbed your latest pap.

Do you have any idea of the different grades of coal? I guess if most of your figures are peat/lignite, barely enough to light a fart's worth of flame, no matter. There's trillions of cubic meters of it!!!!

Back to reality, read a book.

Study - World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived - NYTimes.com

_Bottom line, say the paper's co-authors, Tadeusz Patzek, a University of Texas engineering professor, and Greg Croft, a St. Mary's College of California earth science professor, is that the 7 billion tons of coal the world is now mining and burning each year is about the best it can do.

"Our ability to produce this resource at 8 billion tons per year, in my mind, is a dream," Patzek said._​
Coal reality:


----------



## California Girl

Dr.House said:


> I'll take the left seriously when they start walking the walk....





I wish I wasn't out of rep!


----------



## Samson

westwall said:


> CO2 is NECCESSARY and NOT A POLLUTANT.  That is a fraud.  The more CO2 the better plants grow.  Look at the fossils of long ago when CO2 levels were 20 times higher then today....everything was bigger, the plants, the animals, the insects, everything.  It was a paradise.



Don't forget the absence of those pesky humans.


----------



## editec

The _absolute_ cheapest source of newfound energy is the energy we CONSERVE.

And the happiest part of the news is that this source of newfound energy will work both on a national and international scale and on a personal scale as well.

Every erg of energy we do not use, is one less erg of energy we need to drill or dig out of the ground and then burn to add to the pollution problems we're facing.

This is a win/win solution.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'
> 
> The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a poster starts with "liberals = bad; cons = good," rest assured some horseshit is about to follow. This one didn't disappoint.
> 
> Every time I see you contribute here, junior Coulter, I feel dumber for having absorbed your latest pap.
Click to expand...




It's difficult to believe you "feel dumber."

Particularly on the 80th anniversary of "Peak Oil."


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> The _absolute_ cheapest source of newfound energy is the energy we CONSERVE.
> 
> And the happiest part of the news is that this source of newfound energy will work both on a national and international scale and on a personal scale as well.
> 
> Every erg of energy we do not use, is one less erg of energy we need to drill or dig out of the ground and then burn to add to the pollution problems we're facing.
> 
> This is a win/win solution.



So, the computer you wrote this on was attached to a generator turned by a rat running a treadmill?


----------



## sparky

westwall said:


> Yes, just imagine if we could get the leftists to quit squandering money on* horribly inefficient enrgy plans like wind energy*.  Solar is fine for small installations like I have at home but on a large scale they become horribly inefficient.  Coal is the cheapest best and most efficient source of energy in the whole world.  With modern technology it is no more polluting then natural gas and forget about the CO2 nonsense.
> 
> .



oilocracy meadowmuffins.......

First 100 Percent Wind-Powered City in the United States
The city of Rock Port, Mo. holds the distinction of being the first community in the United States to be totally powered by wind energy.


Electrical Contractor: First 100 Percent Wind-Powered City in the United States


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> It's difficult to believe you "feel dumber."
> 
> Particularly on the 80th anniversary of "Peak Oil."



I know you have difficulty with math, let alone basic logic, but peak arrived in 2005... So that's only 6 years, not 80.

Dick.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to believe you "feel dumber."
> 
> Particularly on the 80th anniversary of "Peak Oil."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you have difficulty with math, let alone basic logic, but peak arrived in 2005... So that's only 6 years, not 80.
> 
> Dick.
Click to expand...


It arrive for what, the 12th time during the past century?

Keep trying, I'm certain you'll eventually be relevant one decade during the next.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I lose all respect for anyone who still talks about "Fossil fuels"


----------



## GHook93

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



The reason we don't know that, because it's not true! We have the largest UNTAPPED reserves in the world.

On top of that we have the 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/166929-largest-oil-scale-reserves-by-far-in-the-world.html


----------



## GHook93

PoliticalChic said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'
> 
> The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...
> Supply over 100 years of electricity to the entire nation
> Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption
> Provide over 2,000 trillion cubic feet of substitute natural gas  lasting a century  at present rates of usage
> 
> Coal has been and will continue to be the steady workhorse for our electricity supply. And, through the process of coal conversion it can also help relieve our oil and natural gas constraints.  Unlike any other nation, Americas coal creates an energy advantage that is abundant, secure and uniquely ours.
> Yes, America is the Saudi Arabia of Coal - Coal Can Do That
> 
> 
> Step one would be to quarantine the Lefties of 'Big Green.'
Click to expand...


We could be teh Saudi Arabia of Oil also. If we still tapped our current sources, ANWR, off shore, deep sea, in the gulf of Mexico and in the CO oil scales we could go from an oil importer to an oil export.


----------



## westwall

sparky said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, just imagine if we could get the leftists to quit squandering money on* horribly inefficient enrgy plans like wind energy*.  Solar is fine for small installations like I have at home but on a large scale they become horribly inefficient.  Coal is the cheapest best and most efficient source of energy in the whole world.  With modern technology it is no more polluting then natural gas and forget about the CO2 nonsense.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oilocracy meadowmuffins.......
> 
> First 100 Percent Wind-Powered City in the United States
> The city of Rock Port, Mo. holds the distinction of being the first community in the United States to be totally powered by wind energy.
> 
> 
> Electrical Contractor: First 100 Percent Wind-Powered City in the United States
Click to expand...






You might want to look at the town of Rockport a little closer.....  With a total population of 1,294 and a total area of 2.86 square miles it is on the tiny side so power by wind is a lot more feasable.  However, when the wind doesn't blow they will be drawing power from the grid.

Atchison County

Population in July 2009: 1,294. Population change since 2000: -7.2%





Males: 601   (46.5%) 
Females: 693   (53.5%) 



Median resident age:   45.7 years 
Missouri median age:   36.1 years 

Zip codes: 64482.



Rock Port, Missouri (MO 64482) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders


----------



## mal

Dr.House said:


> Why are most of the 0bama stickers on SUVs?
> 
> Granted there are a lot less of those stickers (and a lot more scrape-off resedue), but still...
> 
> You guys talk a good game, though....lol



I am going to start taking Pics of the Obama 2008 and the 2012 stickers that are on Leftist's cars that have "End(this) War" stickers on there from the Bush Era...

Seeing as he hasn't Ended ANY, instead he's Started at least one more.



peace...


----------



## toxicmedia

PoliticalChic said:


> Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption


Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009. 

You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.

I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'
> 
> The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a poster starts with "liberals = bad; cons = good," rest assured some horseshit is about to follow. This one didn't disappoint.
> 
> Every time I see you contribute here, junior Coulter, I feel dumber for having absorbed your latest pap.
> 
> Do you have any idea of the different grades of coal? I guess if most of your figures are peat/lignite, barely enough to light a fart's worth of flame, no matter. There's trillions of cubic meters of it!!!!
> 
> Back to reality, read a book.
> 
> Study - World's 'Peak Coal' Moment Has Arrived - NYTimes.com
> 
> _Bottom line, say the paper's co-authors, Tadeusz Patzek, a University of Texas engineering professor, and Greg Croft, a St. Mary's College of California earth science professor, is that the 7 billion tons of coal the world is now mining and burning each year is about the best it can do.
> 
> "Our ability to produce this resource at 8 billion tons per year, in my mind, is a dream," Patzek said._​
> Coal reality:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0y3KPmM22g]YouTube - &#x202a;Peak Coal: US Coal Supply Limits: Economic and Energy Constraints - Leslie Glustrom&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
Click to expand...






Ohhh c'mon Jiggs, not another Hubbert curve article.  They have allready been proven wrong anyway so why bring up the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about.
Typically the authors emphasize that not all coal is anthracite and instead is bituminous (which burns jut fine thank you very much) as if that's some terrible thing.  Bituminous coal has been burned for hundreds of years and there doesn't seem to be a problem.  Lignite too has been burned for hundreds of years and peat (which they denigrate as barely capable of burning) has been used as a fuel for THOUSANDS of years.

Your groups incessant bleating about the end of the world is tiresome and inaccurate.

The only "peak" anything is lithium which is used for your expensive car batteries...THAT is a truly limited resource.  Interesting how you are all for using that up.


----------



## westwall

toxicmedia said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption
> 
> 
> 
> Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009.
> 
> You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.
> 
> I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.
Click to expand...





Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.


----------



## Samson

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption
> 
> 
> 
> Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009.
> 
> You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.
> 
> I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
Click to expand...


Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.

Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.

Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.

Call me a liberal-thinker.


----------



## toxicmedia

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yield upwards of a trillion barrels of oil using coal-to-liquid technology  over 125 years of current consumption
> 
> 
> 
> Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009.
> 
> You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.
> 
> I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
Click to expand...

It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at *current consumption*"?

Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat. 

Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.


----------



## toxicmedia

Samson said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009.
> 
> You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.
> 
> I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.
> 
> Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.
> 
> Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.
> 
> Call me a liberal-thinker.
Click to expand...

Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.


----------



## westwall

toxicmedia said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the new coal derived fuel emits twice the C02 as refined crude gas, even with that new process those South African scientists came up with in 2009.
> 
> You'd have to roll back EPA guidelines to allow cars to burn it.
> 
> I think this idea should be a last resort. Like maybe if the rest of the world embargos America, which they won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at *current consumption*"?
> 
> Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat.
> 
> Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.
Click to expand...






The US has allready reached peak gas consumption.  That was reached in 2006.  Since that time US consumption has been in decline.  The alarmists never bother to mention that either.

I don't believe I called you a liberal either!  I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts.  As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place.  More plants, more animals, bigger, etc.  Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.


"Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?

Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.

At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.

Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.

Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."


U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future


----------



## Samson

toxicmedia said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.
> 
> Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.
> 
> Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.
> 
> Call me a liberal-thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.
Click to expand...


"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.


----------



## toxicmedia

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at *current consumption*"?
> 
> Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat.
> 
> Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has allready reached peak gas consumption.  That was reached in 2006.  Since that time US consumption has been in decline.  The alarmists never bother to mention that either.
> 
> I don't believe I called you a liberal either!  I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts.  As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place.  More plants, more animals, bigger, etc.  Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.
> 
> 
> "Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?
> 
> Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.
> 
> At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.
> 
> Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.
> 
> Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."
> 
> 
> U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future
Click to expand...

Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago. 

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?

Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars. 

I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.


----------



## toxicmedia

Samson said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.
> 
> Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.
> 
> Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.
> 
> Call me a liberal-thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Worn Out?"
> 
> Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.
Click to expand...

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound. 

The real problem I have, and I'm not saying you're one of these people, is folks who hear somebody even utter the words C02, solar, or electric car, and imediatly launch off into "you're a liberal!" "there is plenty of oil and coal!!" "oil and coal don't really pollute!!!" "global warming is a hoax!!!!" "no need to even examine the subject!!!!!"


----------



## Samson

toxicmedia said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Worn Out?"
> 
> Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.
Click to expand...


Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?


----------



## toxicmedia

Samson said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Worn Out?"
> 
> Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.
> 
> Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"
> 
> Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?
> 
> What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?
Click to expand...

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



How is that an argument against drilling for our own oil?


----------



## Dot Com

Samson's right!!! Coal is great!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Environmental_impacts


> U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for *mercury contamination*. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. *The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions*


----------



## westwall

toxicmedia said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at *current consumption*"?
> 
> Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat.
> 
> Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has allready reached peak gas consumption.  That was reached in 2006.  Since that time US consumption has been in decline.  The alarmists never bother to mention that either.
> 
> I don't believe I called you a liberal either!  I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts.  As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place.  More plants, more animals, bigger, etc.  Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.
> 
> 
> "Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?
> 
> Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.
> 
> At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.
> 
> Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.
> 
> Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."
> 
> 
> U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?
> 
> Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.
> 
> I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.
Click to expand...





Paleo records show how nice things were back then.  Also many, many critters evolved back then that are abundant today.  The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages.  Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher.   Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment.  Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.


----------



## westwall

toxicmedia said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.
> 
> Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"
> 
> Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?
> 
> What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.
Click to expand...





No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels.  None.  Cost wise they are also significantly higher.  The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.
> 
> Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"
> 
> Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?
> 
> What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No green source of energy comes close to the *efficiencies *of fossil fuels.  None.  Cost wise they are also significantly higher.  The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.
Click to expand...


If they're "so efficient" why do they need tax loop-holes


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No green source of energy comes close to the *efficiencies *of fossil fuels.  None.  Cost wise they are also significantly higher.  The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're "so efficient" why do they need tax loop-holes
Click to expand...





They don't.  They get them because they have bought off the politicians involved.  I am all in favour of ending subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies.  So long as they get to drill here and no longer have to compete against government controlled oil companies like the vast majority of oil companies are.


----------



## Moonglow

the Air Force is starting to use non-edible aviation bio fuel.

Also in development by the military is liquid coal synthetic fuel


----------



## chikenwing

Dot Com said:


> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?




Try opening up those ears,cons have been blubbering about that for years.But when you cant hear the rest of the world over one's own shrillness,what do you expect.


----------



## mike beev

We have written history going back some 6,000 years; let's hope for and work toward our civilization  lasting another 6,000.  So, having a few hundred years on fossil fuels means that we will have to go to sustainable energy some day.  We will not run out of either sunshine or wind, and you cannot say that for anything you have to dig out of the ground.  

Being the Saudi Arabia of Coal is hardly a good thing when the pollution we put out using it is acidifying the Atlantic Ocean.


----------



## mike beev

I think we can agree on cutting subsidies and tax loopholes to ethanol producers and to fossil fuel producers.  Growing industries have traditionally gotten gov't help in the past, and I would like to see solar roofs, solar farms and wind farms get some.  

Our founding fathers had tarriffs on imported manufactured goods, remember from middle school history the South and North fighting over this one?  Also, remember the huge land grants to the railroads building across the country.


----------



## westwall

mike beev said:


> We have written history going back some 6,000 years; let's hope for and work toward our civilization  lasting another 6,000.  So, having a few hundred years on fossil fuels means that we will have to go to sustainable energy some day.  We will not run out of either sunshine or wind, and you cannot say that for anything you have to dig out of the ground.
> 
> Being the Saudi Arabia of Coal is hardly a good thing when the pollution we put out using it is acidifying the Atlantic Ocean.






Ocean acidification is the latest fraud perpetrated by trhe alarmist crowd in an effort to seperate you from your money.  The ocean is alkaline at an average pH of 8.1.  If you burned every thing on the planet capable of adding CO2 to the atmosphere the pH would drop to a paltry 8.0.  In other words still alkaline.  Even if you could get the pH level to drop below 7 it wouldn't matter.  The corals that the alarmists are bleating about EVOLVED in a atmosphere with 20 TIMES the CO2 level we have today.


----------



## Dot Com

chikenwing said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try opening up those ears,cons have been blubbering about that for years.But when you cant hear the rest of the world over one's own shrillness,what do you expect.
Click to expand...

Like when Reagan came to office and promptly removed the solar panels? Where do conservatives stand now on seeking out alternatives to oil/coal? "Drill baby drill" ring a bell?


----------



## chikenwing

The thing is we don't havean available alternative energy source or sources,to meet demand,use what we have and work on the future ,it can be done at the same time,its not just one way or the other.We have a large amount of oil and gas in the US why we don't use them more is beyond reason.


----------



## Samson

toxicmedia said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.
> 
> Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"
> 
> Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?
> 
> What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.
Click to expand...


You seem to be under the impression that a magic wand can make this mythical resource appear to instantaneously replace coal.

First, I'm not the one advancing YOUR ridiculous notions regarding the use of coal. If you're going to defend your absurdity, then YOU should be able to answer a few simple questions.

Second, I'm not sure which of your idiotic notions should be addressed:

1. A cheaper resource will be found while coal is a cheap resource
2. That the Chinese will automatically adopt this resource
3. That the cheaper resource could be utilized in exactly the same ways that coal can be used, with no by-product.

I'll simplify this for you: Just pick ONE.


----------



## Samson

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.
> 
> Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"
> 
> Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?
> 
> What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels.  None.  Cost wise they are also significantly higher.  The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.
Click to expand...


I wonder how much the Chinese spend on developing "green" energy?

Well, I'm certain that since the USA is doing it, then the Chinese are doing it also.


----------



## Samson

Dot Com said:


> Samson's right!!! Coal is great!!!
> Fossil fuel power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for *mercury contamination*. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. *The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions*
Click to expand...


OOOOoooooooOOOOOOO!!!!

a wikipedia citation!!!



Finally, an explaination for your moronic posts: Mercury poisoning

Hey, simple solution: Don't regularly eat the fish. Have a fucking ham sammich every once in a while, for christssakes, you goddamn dolphin.

I guarantee you will not find what contamination levels the China Environmental Protection Agency found in "isolated waterways."


----------



## Dot Com

Samson's suggestion is to overlook the poisoning of the environment. F'ing brilliant


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?



It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'.  You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.  

There is no Magic Energy.  To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply _stupid_.  

Get it?  It's YOUR fault.


----------



## daveman

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'
> 
> The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a poster starts with "liberals = bad; cons = good," rest assured some horseshit is about to follow.
Click to expand...


But "liberals = good; cons = bad", as in the OP, is just dandy?


----------



## Dot Com

daveman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'.  You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.
> 
> There is no Magic Energy.  To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply _stupid_.
> 
> Get it?  It's YOUR fault.
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.


----------



## daveman

toxicmedia said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Worn Out?"
> 
> Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.
> 
> The real problem I have, and I'm not saying you're one of these people, is folks who hear somebody even utter the words C02, solar, or electric car, and imediatly launch off into "you're a liberal!" "there is plenty of oil and coal!!" "oil and coal don't really pollute!!!" "global warming is a hoax!!!!" "no need to even examine the subject!!!!!"
Click to expand...


If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?


----------



## Samson

Dot Com said:


> Samson's suggestion is to overlook the poisoning of the environment. F'ing brilliant



My suggestion is the same as the USFDA



> According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish shall not be a health concern for most people
> 
> 1.Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they might contain high levels of mercury.
> 2.Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. Five of the most commonly eaten fish and shellfish that are low in mercury are: shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. Another commonly eaten fish, albacore or big eye ("white") tuna depending on its origin might have more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, it is recommended that you should not eat more than up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
> 3.Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but consume no other fish during that week



Most don't need to be fucking geniuses to follow instructions not to eat tuna more than three times a week.

By the way, what streams do Tuna live in?


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'.  You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.
> 
> There is no Magic Energy.  To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply _stupid_.
> 
> Get it?  It's YOUR fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
Click to expand...

Okay.  And while you're at it, let us build new nuke plants and drill for our own oil.


----------



## Samson

Dot Com said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'.  You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.
> 
> There is no Magic Energy.  To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply _stupid_.
> 
> Get it?  It's YOUR fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
Click to expand...


I'm not defending spending on Iraq, but nice try with the red herring.

Nor did I ever say that coal should be a "subsidized resource," whatever that means. IMHO No company should receive anything but a bill from the government every year for 10% of their profits.

I'm still not sure how any of this has anything to do with the idiotic proposal that the USA reduce coal consuption?


----------



## Dot Com

More fossil fuel shenanigans from "the source" 

Floodwater Carries Oil Along Yellowstone's Banks - WSJ.com


> Workers vacuumed and soaked up pockets of oil along a 20- to 30-mile stretch of the flooded Yellowstone River in Montana Wednesday after as much as 1,000 barrels of oil spilled from a ruptured Exxon Mobil Corp. pipeline days earlier.


----------



## tonystewart1

More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits. 

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative. 

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.


----------



## Dot Com

tonystewart1 said:


> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.





Dot Com said:


> No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. *How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.*


PLUS this:


> U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for *mercury contamination*. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. *The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions*


Coal aint a miracle fuel.


----------



## tonystewart1

Dot Com said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. *How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PLUS this:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for *mercury contamination*. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. *The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal aint a miracle fuel.
Click to expand...


I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.

But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.


----------



## Dot Com

tonystewart1 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLUS this:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for *mercury contamination*. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. *The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal aint a miracle fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.
> 
> But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.
Click to expand...

This is true but we can stop giving them preferential treatment to the detriment of alternatives.


----------



## tonystewart1

Dot Com said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> PLUS this:
> 
> Coal aint a miracle fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.
> 
> But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true but we can stop giving them preferential treatment to the detriment of alternatives.
Click to expand...


Where is the detriment of alternatives? Our govt pumps huge sums of cash into green energy.


----------



## flacaltenn

Hey Dot Com:

Lemme help you out here. don't know why I'm volunteering. You never answered my question about what "alternatives" you were selling here on Pg 2. But mercury ain't the scariest aspect of coal.. 

The typical coal plant releases about 80 pounds of RADIOACTIVE waste into the atmosphere every day. FAR FAR more ejected radiation than is associated with normal operation of a nuclear plant. And the ash waste and the boilers themselves are soo radioactive, that maintenance workers have to limit exposure times. 

That's why we should be replacing them with next gen nuclear plants. SOONER rather than later.. 

There are serious issues about even calling wind, solar "alternatives". They are really peaker technologies. Not 24/7/365 primary baseline generators. And there are enviromental and geographical limits to these technologies as well. You'll get your 20% "alternative" by 2030 or so. But that's about as far as it can be pushed.


----------



## daveman

tonystewart1 said:


> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.


Leftists don't do common sense.


----------



## tonystewart1

daveman said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists don't do common sense.
Click to expand...


Common sense and plans for world domination dont go hand in hand.


----------



## daveman

tonystewart1 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists don't do common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common sense and plans for world domination dont go hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Leftists want power over others, but don't want to do anything to get it.  They expect others to do the work and then hand the reins over to them.


----------



## Dot Com

Its your corporations right to despoil the air, ground, and water, while simultaneously getting tax loop-holes from the gov't, as long as it turns a profit


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> Its your corporations right to despoil the air, ground, and water, while simultaneously getting tax loop-holes from the gov't, as long as it turns a profit



KKKorporations!  Booga booga!!


----------



## toxicmedia

westwall said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has allready reached peak gas consumption.  That was reached in 2006.  Since that time US consumption has been in decline.  The alarmists never bother to mention that either.
> 
> I don't believe I called you a liberal either!  I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts.  As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place.  More plants, more animals, bigger, etc.  Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.
> 
> 
> "Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?
> 
> Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.
> 
> At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.
> 
> Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.
> 
> Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."
> 
> 
> U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future
> 
> 
> 
> Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?
> 
> Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.
> 
> I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paleo records show how nice things were *back then*.  Also many, many *critters *evolved back then that are abundant today.  The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages.  Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher.   Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment.  Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.
Click to expand...

Just a side note...When I google "ocean acidification", I get a bunch of global warming alarmist sites. When I google "ocean acidification fraud", all I get is anti environmentalist sites....this is a perfect example of an issue that has plenty of toxic media involved in the information about it out there. 

At any rate...we were talking about C02 levels being 20 times higher...and that being a great environment for humans....

But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.

The Ordovician

I don't see corals, ocean acidification, or anything else we've talkied about that is convincing evidence that high C02 levels are absolutely harmless. When you google "C02 twenty times as high"...you get a bunch of anti environmentalist sites again...it looks like that side is trying to seize this C02 levels thing. 

The controversy here is obviously how much C02 does it take to cause ocean levels to rise to Al Gore's model. Apparently not as little as he, and the scientists on his payroll, originally thought. But you'd have to be sure that doubling the C02 output of combustion engines in the US, hasn't the potential to contribute C02 levels rising that high, in order to go with the "C02 is harmless" angle. 

I'm not finding enough objective credible information out there for me to derive how high that is, because the internet is clogged with partisan brackish goo on the matter. 

So IMO....the statement that "C02 is harmless"....is unsound for lack of proof.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Ohhh c'mon Jiggs, not another Hubbert curve article.  They have allready been proven wrong anyway so why bring up the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about.



What is God's name are you talking about, rinse repeater? Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.



westwall said:


> Typically the authors emphasize that not all coal is anthracite and instead is bituminous (which burns jut fine thank you very much) as if that's some terrible thing.  Bituminous coal has been burned for hundreds of years and there doesn't seem to be a problem.  Lignite too has been burned for hundreds of years and peat (which they denigrate as barely capable of burning) has been used as a fuel for THOUSANDS of years.



"Used as fuel" and "powering modern society" are worlds apart. You understand how this works, don't you?

I'll put the same challenge to you that I did regarding the oil equation that you ran from: Link to a claim of proven, recoverable, high-grade coal in the amounts you bloviators insist actually exists.



westwall said:


> Your groups incessant bleating about the end of the world is tiresome and inaccurate.



LOL. It's so bad for you, you're resorting to straw man argument. Who said anything about "the end of the world," liar? Try and stick to what I actually type, not what you hope I must mean.



westwall said:


> The only "peak" anything is lithium which is used for your expensive car batteries...THAT is a truly limited resource.  Interesting how you are all for using that up.



Could you BE more full of crap? Link to where I EVER once advocated lithium anywhere on this forum, or please STFU and GTFO.

Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it. If you have an alternate explanation for why the world economy stands at the brink (one that somehow doesn't include the 600% increase in energy prices the past decade), please share. Should be good for amusement.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh c'mon Jiggs, not another Hubbert curve article.  They have allready been proven wrong anyway so why bring up the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is God's name are you talking about, rinse repeater? Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically the authors emphasize that not all coal is anthracite and instead is bituminous (which burns jut fine thank you very much) as if that's some terrible thing.  Bituminous coal has been burned for hundreds of years and there doesn't seem to be a problem.  Lignite too has been burned for hundreds of years and peat (which they denigrate as barely capable of burning) has been used as a fuel for THOUSANDS of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Used as fuel" and "powering modern society" are worlds apart. You understand how this works, don't you?
> 
> I'll put the same challenge to you that I did regarding the oil equation that you ran from: Link to a claim of proven, recoverable, high-grade coal in the amounts you bloviators insist actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your groups incessant bleating about the end of the world is tiresome and inaccurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. It's so bad for you, you're resorting to straw man argument. Who said anything about "the end of the world," liar? Try and stick to what I actually type, not what you hope I must mean.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "peak" anything is lithium which is used for your expensive car batteries...THAT is a truly limited resource.  Interesting how you are all for using that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you BE more full of crap? Link to where I EVER once advocated lithium anywhere on this forum, or please STFU and GTFO.
> 
> Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it. If you have an alternate explanation for why the world economy stands at the brink (one that somehow doesn't include the 600% increase in energy prices the past decade), please share. Should be good for amusement.
Click to expand...






I don't need to jiggy baby.  You people only focus on the rarest grade of a commodity which is a lie.  You make a claim that the modern society can't power itself on low grade crude oil and yet we do.  You make the claim that anthracite coal is the only type that is usable and that is simply ridiculous.  Bituminous coal is the DOMINANT type of coal on the planet and it burns just fine.  You peopla are the ones who are lying...not us.  Even lignite is usable in a modern furnace which is capable of far more powerful and efficient usage.

Try again.  Or GTFO AND STFU!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.



Please educate us on the number of peaks Hubbert's curve allows, because after global oil production peaked in about 1979...it did it again in 2000! And then 2005! And then 2006! And then 2008! And then 2010!

You would think one would be enough, eh Jiggsy?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it.



We've been through peaks before, I imagine we'll get through the next ones as well. How does your religion account for all those past peaks anyway? Or aren't you high enough up in the order for them to tell you the real secrets yet?


----------



## westwall

toxicmedia said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?
> 
> Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.
> 
> I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paleo records show how nice things were *back then*.  Also many, many *critters *evolved back then that are abundant today.  The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages.  Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher.   Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment.  Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a side note...When I google "ocean acidification", I get a bunch of global warming alarmist sites. When I google "ocean acidification fraud", all I get is anti environmentalist sites....this is a perfect example of an issue that has plenty of toxic media involved in the information about it out there.
> 
> At any rate...we were talking about C02 levels being 20 times higher...and that being a great environment for humans....
> 
> But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.
> 
> The Ordovician
> 
> I don't see corals, ocean acidification, or anything else we've talkied about that is convincing evidence that high C02 levels are absolutely harmless. When you google "C02 twenty times as high"...you get a bunch of anti environmentalist sites again...it looks like that side is trying to seize this C02 levels thing.
> 
> The controversy here is obviously how much C02 does it take to cause ocean levels to rise to Al Gore's model. Apparently not as little as he, and the scientists on his payroll, originally thought. But you'd have to be sure that doubling the C02 output of combustion engines in the US, hasn't the potential to contribute C02 levels rising that high, in order to go with the "C02 is harmless" angle.
> 
> I'm not finding enough objective credible information out there for me to derive how high that is, because the internet is clogged with partisan brackish goo on the matter.
> 
> So IMO....the statement that "C02 is harmless"....is unsound for lack of proof.
Click to expand...





Here is a paper presented to the US senate by a NOAA scientist who was also a IPCC contributor from 1988 to the year 2000.  His name is Dr. John Everett...



"I. THE CONCERNS
There are several concerns about CO2 entering the oceans and causing its pH to become lower.
Their discussion in the press and among policy officials has led to the inclusion of acidification
in this hearing. These concerns are:
1. Animals with calcium carbonate shells will lose the ability to make shells
2. Existing shells will become weaker
3. Loss of shell-forming animals will reduce food for those higher in the food chain
4. Many species will be gone in 30 years
5. Oysters and clams are dying
6. Jellyfish are increasing
7. Seagrasses will be injured.
The concerns are based on the work of respected scientists who have shared the above beliefs or
authored papers that argue the above points. They believe increased atmospheric CO2 will
increase the acidification of the oceans. The basis is largely a set of emission scenarios
developed by IPCC in the early 1990s in an attempt to reign in the mass confusion about the
future trajectory of CO2 emissions. With this standard set of scenarios, climate modelers could
then have a standard set of inputs in terms of what was broadly considered a primary determinant
of climate  the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. This proportion is based on new
contributions after deducting removals by the Earth system and assumes a decreasing removal
ability as CO2 increases. For the first time, modelers around the world could compare results
while impact assessment scientists and policy makers could look at points on which most models
agreed. Standardization of scenarios allowed modelers to identify errors or alternative ways to
predict or handle parameters, such as cloud cover. One of the scenarios became heavily used and
is identified as IS92  Business as Usual. Nearly 20 years ago, it was a reasonable approach and
in the middle range of alternative scenarios. It underpins much of the research findings I will
present today.
There are other respected scientists who believe that the Business as Usual scenario has been
overtaken by events. The cost of fossil fuels is rising, reflecting increasing scarcity and
contributing to a slower CO2 growth in the atmosphere and a lack of acceleration. New science
shows the Earths ability to absorb the same proportion of new CO2 each year has not been
3
diminished, removing a key assumption that underpins acceleration. Importantly, oceans are
alkaline - not acidic, so use of the term acidification unnecessarily promotes fear. If all the
CO2 in the air were put into the ocean, the oceans would still be alkaline. With all this talk of
acidification, we need to reassure bathers that their feet will not dissolve when they step into the
ocean. Ocean water at the surface generally has a pH over 8 and neutral is 7.0 (pure water) while
a puddle of rain water (pH 5.6) is 100 times more acidic after having picked up CO2 in its fall
through the air. Many of our recreation lakes and drinking water reservoirs (such as most of
those in some states; (e. g., 70% in Maine) have pH values so low that they are truly acidic (pH
<7). There is nothing wrong with the fish and the water in these lakes. It is often just that the
lakes have less limestone and more granite on their bottoms. Technically, we should say the
oceans could become less alkaline, rather than more acidic. In any case, unlike rainwater, the
oceans will never become acidic.
Whether or not laboratory studies provide the answers we think are reasonable, we need to look
more broadly. The Russian academicians (of their Academy of Sciences) I worked with in IPCC
taught me to look at how the Earth responded in past ages when conditions were like those
projected, and to get up from the computer and look around. They gravely distrusted computer
models. So, what can we learn from the past and what do we see around us? The oceans and
coastal zones have been far warmer and colder and much more acidic than is projected. Marine
life has been in the oceans nearly since when they were formed. During the millennia life
endured and responded to CO2 many times higher than present, and to temperatures that put
tropical plants at the poles or covered our land by ice a mile thick. The memory of these events is
built into the genetic plasticity of the species on this planet. Impacts will be determined by this
plasticity from past experiences. If we open our eyes, we see that nearly all of our ponds and
lakes are often more acidic than the oceans (pH 8.1), yet they team with most of the kinds of life
that are in the oceans. This is important.
We should also consider that CO2 is required for all plant life and it is in short supply, to the
point it limits growth rates for most plants. This is yet another clue regarding impacts."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16


----------



## konradv

*If we open our eyes, we see that nearly all of our ponds and
lakes are often more acidic than the oceans (pH 8.1), yet they team with most of the kinds of life
that are in the oceans. This is important.*

That may seem important, but is actually irrelevant.  The bottom line isn't that in different places or times the pH has been higher or lower, but that the temperature, slinity, pH, etc. at which the organisms in question evolved are important.  If one of those ancient corals lived today, they wouldn't live for long because of present conditions being different from when it evolved.  Talking about changes in the past is actually a red-herring because those chasnges happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, while we're concerned about what's happened over the last two hundred.


----------



## Bill Angel

toxicmedia said:


> But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.



Some scientists would disagree with you on that point:

Scientists solve mystery of high-CO2 Ice Age


----------



## Cimerian

I have a fish tank. It is a saltwater reef tank.  It is very sensitive to pH levels.  CO2 is used to lower the pH if need be.  We do need to protect our oceans.  They give us much more than you know.


----------



## JiggsCasey

daveman said:


> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists don't do common sense.
Click to expand...


If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.

Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and  decline is imminent.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.



No one denies global resource depletion. It is a strawman constructed simply for the purpose of calling someone else a name. Once the first crude oil molecule suffered human initiated combustion, humans began depleting a global resource. Same with coal, or natural gas, or what have you. It has been going on for centuries now. Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and  decline is imminent.



Why would anyone pay much attention to banks, who don't find oil fields, sovereign governments, who require the remnants of the 7 Sisters to find and develop their oil, oil giant CEOs with degrees in business or accounting who have never found an oil field in their life but are good at counting beans, or petroleum geologists who became bored with retirement and thought stirring up some shit for bottom feeders like peakers to feast on was a fun way to spend an afternoon?

The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?

When are you going to go back to your church and give us a fully grown Priest of Peak Jiggsy? Your ignorance on the topic, while consistent, is making us all weary.


----------



## JiggsCasey

And, like clockwork, out from under your rock you come within minutes of my 1-2 visits per month.  I swear, you're such an unrivaled loser, you send yourself text alerts whenever I appear to take your tired argument behind the woodshed. 



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies global resource depletion. It is a strawman constructed simply for the purpose of calling someone else a name. Once the first crude oil molecule suffered human initiated combustion, humans began depleting a global resource. Same with coal, or natural gas, or what have you. It has been going on for centuries now. Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.
Click to expand...


Delicious irony here once again, goal post mover. Clearly, we're referring to the downward slope of global peak production. Asshats like you vacillate between insisting peak is not here and insisting it will be seamlessly mitigated. You can't ever seem to get your own story straight.

You're the one perpetually moving the parameters of the argument being asserted. It's what complete frauds like you do. Stick and move, clutch and grab. Meanwhile, you're losing round after round.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and  decline is imminent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone pay much attention to banks, who don't find oil fields, sovereign governments, who require the remnants of the 7 Sisters to find and develop their oil, oil giant CEOs with degrees in business or accounting who have never found an oil field in their life but are good at counting beans, or petroleum geologists who became bored with retirement and thought stirring up some shit for bottom feeders like peakers to feast on was a fun way to spend an afternoon?
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those entities are lying or dumb?

Holy crap, do you ever suck at this. 



RGR said:


> The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?



Gosh, I dunno. Perhaps because discoveries never declined back then like they have today? Nose dived, in fact... For some 40 years now.



RGR said:


> When are you going to go back to your church and give us a fully grown Priest of Peak Jiggsy? Your ignorance on the topic, while consistent, is making us all weary.



Irony. You're that insidious combination of willful denial and ignorance, coated with a layer of arrogance.

When it comes to global flow rates, their affect on the economy, and the realities facing industrial nations the next 10 years... you're a T-ball player, and I'm in The Show.

Either way, thank you for admitting that you believe all those multi-billion dollar entities who set policy and investment agendas are all maintaining some bizarre conspiracy to artificially inflate energy prices. 

Holy crap, RGR. You suck at this.


----------



## Dot Com

Fiore is an acclaimed satirist:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi37tyv7F64&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Oil Anthem&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## JiggsCasey

I can see that RGR is busy hammering out his latest irrelevant straw man rant, replete with accusations of religious zealotry for an atheist, and allegory to late 19th century conditions.

Booooooooooooooooooooooooring.

His position on this matter can be summed up perfectly:


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delicious irony here once again, goal post mover. Clearly, we're referring to the downward slope of global peak production.
Click to expand...


Clearly, you did not take my advice. Depletion of a natural resource is something which begins with the first molecule produced. The rate of depletion can change over time, but that is not what you said, you simply used the word "depletion". Incorrectly. Is it so difficult to understand that certain words have a certain meaning, and when you use them incorrectly the best you can hope for is for someone to pat you on the head and send you back to the books to learn something?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You can't ever seem to get your own story straight.



My story has not changed once since I started posting on this website. Your memory at any given point in time appears to be, dare I say, disjointed? You would stand your religion in a better light if you stopped parroting and began thinking.  



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, I dunno. Perhaps because discoveries never declined back then like they have today? Nose dived, in fact... For some 40 years now.
Click to expand...


Are you really so stupid as to miss the point, or is my reliance on historical fact so far outside your religions teachings that they have nothing for you to cut and paste?

Discoveries declining was EXACTLY why there were claims of running out, pre WWI. As for your 40 year claim, that is incorrect as well. Global peak oil discoveries (flowing oil now, not that mining operation in Alberta) peaked in 1935. This is using the standard Colin Campbell backdating technique to hide the size of reserve growth of course. So discoveries of oil have been declining since that year, which puts declining discoveries at 76 years. Perhaps I can recommend a math course for you as well?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> When it comes to global flow rates, their affect on the economy, and the realities facing industrial nations the next 10 years... you're a T-ball player, and I'm in The Show.



So far we have established that you can't do anything but cut and paste, and call names, don't know when global oil discoveries peaked, can't add, and don't know the definition of depletion. And that is just in your last couple of posts. Care you take another multi-week breather to rest up for your next ignoramus recital?


----------



## kenf

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!


----------



## Dot Com

kenf said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!
Click to expand...


Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 4% of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> kenf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 45 of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.
Click to expand...


So what do you plan on replacing fossil fuels with when you make them illegal?


I'd like to remind you once again there is no Magic Energy.


----------



## whitehall

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



Why does the left cling to the incredibly foolish notion that America should stop drilling for oil? Is it because a simple minded (anti-American?) socialist president decided in the middle of an economic crisis that we use too much of the stuff? If there was a reasonable substitute for fossil fuel we would be using it you friggin left wing dummies. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and now isn't the time to engage in an extortion scheme or pie in the sky stupid stubstitutes. In 30 or 40 years the private sector might come up with some substitutes for fossil fuel if the a-holes in the federal government stay off their backs.


----------



## Dot Com

Because we need to diversify & stop rewarding 19th century energy extraction through leasing public lands for pennies on the dollar and lavish subsidies/loop-holes.


----------



## Samson

daveman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kenf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 45 of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you plan on replacing fossil fuels with when you make them illegal?
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind you once again there is no Magic Energy.
Click to expand...




Please don't make them think too hard.

I'm enjoying the $100/bbl oil prices and continued dependence on Venezuelan and Mexican crude their collective stupidity is causing:




> A proposed pipeline that would ferry Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries has run afoul of the recharged federal push to protect minorities and the poor from an overburden of pollution.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the pipeline plan doesn't evaluate the potential health impacts on Port Arthur, where one fork of the pipeline will end




Read more: EPA raises red flag on plan for Canada-Texas pipeline | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Beginning to build the pipeline before 2012 would create create jobs that would put a dent in unemployment: I wouldn't want Obama to stop shooting himself in the foot. So let's not be so hasty to criticize the moronic dogma of the enviro-wackos.


----------



## daveman

Samson said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 45 of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you plan on replacing fossil fuels with when you make them illegal?
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind you once again there is no Magic Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't make them think too hard.
> 
> I'm enjoying the $100/bbl oil prices and continued dependence on Venezuelan and Mexican crude their collective stupidity is causing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proposed pipeline that would ferry Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries has run afoul of the recharged federal push to protect minorities and the poor from an overburden of pollution.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the pipeline plan doesn't evaluate the potential health impacts on Port Arthur, where one fork of the pipeline will end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: EPA raises red flag on plan for Canada-Texas pipeline | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> Beginning to build the pipeline before 2012 would create create jobs that would put a dent in unemployment: I wouldn't want Obama to stop shooting himself in the foot. So let's not be so hasty to criticize the moronic dogma of the enviro-wackos.
Click to expand...

And so the left once again proves it doesn't actually want us independent from Middle Eastern oil.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tonystewart1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.
> 
> We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.
> 
> Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists don't do common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.
> 
> Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and  decline is imminent.
Click to expand...





Of course.  They make money if  a resource is "rare".  As RGR has pointed out.  How many "peaks" do you get?  Everytime the newspapers scream about peak the likes of Goldman and Co. make billions while the poor people take it in the rear end.  And you help the thieves to do it.  I hope you make a good cut.


----------



## Samson

daveman said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you plan on replacing fossil fuels with when you make them illegal?
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind you once again there is no Magic Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't make them think too hard.
> 
> I'm enjoying the $100/bbl oil prices and continued dependence on Venezuelan and Mexican crude their collective stupidity is causing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proposed pipeline that would ferry Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries has run afoul of the recharged federal push to protect minorities and the poor from an overburden of pollution.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the pipeline plan doesn't evaluate the potential health impacts on Port Arthur, where one fork of the pipeline will end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: EPA raises red flag on plan for Canada-Texas pipeline | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> Beginning to build the pipeline before 2012 would create create jobs that would put a dent in unemployment: I wouldn't want Obama to stop shooting himself in the foot. So let's not be so hasty to criticize the moronic dogma of the enviro-wackos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so the left once again proves it doesn't actually want us independent from Middle Eastern oil.
Click to expand...


Actually, the oil that Canadian crude sent to gulf coast refineries would replace is imported from Venezuela and Mexico...but yes, the Obama administration has added the roadblock to the XL to their absurd limits on Gulf Coast drilling, opening the strategic oil reserve, and reluctance to support fracking to their encouragement of off-shore energy development.

Ironically, the same wacko's that complain about US jobs leaving the US are the same imbeciles that limit the growth of employment in the domestic energy production sector.


----------



## Bill Angel

Samson said:


> A proposed pipeline that would ferry Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries has run afoul of the recharged federal push to protect minorities and the poor from an overburden of pollution.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the pipeline plan doesn't evaluate the potential health impacts on Port Arthur, where one fork of the pipeline will end
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: EPA raises red flag on plan for Canada-Texas pipeline | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Click to expand...


There is another approach to shipping the crude oil: by rail:

See : CP Rail eyes slice of crude oil pie

So the oil can get to Port Arthur, and to other refineries, by rail. 
The problem is cost: 

"According to an industry spokesperson, a ballpark figure to ship oil by rail is $9 - $12 a barrel vs $5 - $7 per barrel by pipeline."


----------



## Samson

Bill Angel said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proposed pipeline that would ferry Canadian crude oil to Texas refineries has run afoul of the recharged federal push to protect minorities and the poor from an overburden of pollution.
> 
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the pipeline plan doesn't evaluate the potential health impacts on Port Arthur, where one fork of the pipeline will end
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: EPA raises red flag on plan for Canada-Texas pipeline | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is another approach to shipping the crude oil: by rail:
> 
> See : CP Rail eyes slice of crude oil pie
> 
> So the oil can get to Port Arthur, and to other refineries, by rail.
> The problem is cost:
> 
> "According to an industry spokesperson, a ballpark figure to ship oil by rail is $9 - $12 a barrel vs $5 - $7 per barrel by pipeline."
Click to expand...


Again, Ironically, much of the premium for shipping oil by rail is the cost of diesel to run the train.....

And we all know what happens when you burn more diesel: Icecaps melt, oceans rise, and soon, Port Arthur is under 10 ft of water.


----------



## Dot Com

pipeline? Just like the conservatives to look for alternate sources rather than look for alternate fuels. '43' was right, you people are addicted.


----------



## Samson

Dot Com said:


> pipeline? Just like the conservatives to look for alternate sources rather than look for alternate fuels. '43' was right, you people are addicted.



Still running around waving your magic wand?



Your dilusions are amusing.


----------



## daveman

Samson said:


> Actually, the oil that Canadian crude sent to gulf coast refineries would replace is imported from Venezuela and Mexico...but yes, the Obama administration has added the roadblock to the XL to their absurd limits on Gulf Coast drilling, opening the strategic oil reserve, and reluctance to support fracking to their encouragement of off-shore energy development.
> 
> Ironically, the same wacko's that complain about US jobs leaving the US are the same imbeciles that limit the growth of employment in the domestic energy production sector.


They're limiting the growth of employment in ALL sectors. 

I can't wait until some fascist asshole suggests legislating that all employers must hire 10% more workers regardless of whether they can afford them or not.  It's coming.


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> pipeline? Just like the conservatives to look for alternate sources rather than look for alternate fuels. '43' was right, you people are addicted.


Spoken like someone who thinks that a little solar panel or tiny wind turbine will make us all energy independent.

You really have no idea of the scale involved, do you?


----------



## Dot Com

david1steven said:


> Of-course i wonder ! Folks don't rely on this.



Rely on what? Independence from fossil fuels, w/ the exception of say, clean-burning natural gas is an economic issue both in independence and markets to be exploited w/ innovation & a  national security issue. I don't suspect many conservatives here understand the national security implications of being addicted to fossil fuels because they can't see beyond the short-term gain to be had. I'll give 43 that much, he knew that the country must get off the addiction. I'm not so sure that he wasn't briefed about possible petro- gains from the invasion of Vietraq though


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Dot Com said:


> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?



Apparently "Dot Com" isn't aware of the FACT that only ONE of the top five oil exporters to the United States is in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia).

And of course "Dot Com" is not going to address the fact that if it weren't for the enviro-nazis and their Democrat cohorts in D.C., the USA would have been virtually energy independent years ago.

This is typical leftist operating procedure...........create a situation that is detrimental to the safety, security, and well-being of U.S. citizens, then blame the whole thing on the opposition.  Childish, and dangerous, behavior.


----------



## Dot Com

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently "Dot Com" isn't aware of the FACT that only ONE of the top five oil exporters to the United States is in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia).
> 
> And of course "Dot Com" is not going to address the fact that if it weren't for the enviro-nazis and their Democrat cohorts in D.C., the USA would have been virtually energy independent years ago.
> 
> This is typical leftist operating procedure...........create a situation that is detrimental to the safety, security, and well-being of U.S. citizens, then blame the whole thing on the opposition.  Childish, and dangerous, behavior.
Click to expand...


AGAIN. You just don't GET IT!!!  This thread is about independence from fossil fuels. I see two cons "liked" your post too   



​


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently "Dot Com" isn't aware of the FACT that only ONE of the top five oil exporters to the United States is in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia).
> 
> And of course "Dot Com" is not going to address the fact that if it weren't for the enviro-nazis and their Democrat cohorts in D.C., the USA would have been virtually energy independent years ago.
> 
> This is typical leftist operating procedure...........create a situation that is detrimental to the safety, security, and well-being of U.S. citizens, then blame the whole thing on the opposition.  Childish, and dangerous, behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN. You just don't GET IT!!!  This thread is about independence from fossil fuels. I see two cons "liked" your post too
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...






Actually I'm a Dem, I just prefer sane environmental and economic policies.  I can show you case after case where environmetalists caused far more harm then the supposed "problem" they were trying to address.  Just like you.  Coal is abundant and cheap.  Yet your choice is to ban its use (effectively) and cause the economy to collapse all for the "greater good".  The rich once again will do fine in your perfect world but the poor, who you supposedly care about get screwed yet again.

Just admit it, you hate the poor and wish they were gone.


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently "Dot Com" isn't aware of the FACT that only ONE of the top five oil exporters to the United States is in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia).
> 
> And of course "Dot Com" is not going to address the fact that if it weren't for the enviro-nazis and their Democrat cohorts in D.C., the USA would have been virtually energy independent years ago.
> 
> This is typical leftist operating procedure...........create a situation that is detrimental to the safety, security, and well-being of U.S. citizens, then blame the whole thing on the opposition.  Childish, and dangerous, behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN. You just don't GET IT!!!  This thread is about independence from fossil fuels. I see two cons "liked" your post too
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a Dem, I just prefer sane environmental and economic policies.  I can show you case after case where environmetalists caused far more harm then the supposed "problem" they were trying to address.  Just like you.  Coal is abundant and cheap.  Yet your choice is to ban its use (effectively) and cause the economy to collapse all for the "greater good".  The rich once again will do fine in your perfect world but the poor, who you supposedly care about get screwed yet again.
> 
> Just admit it, you hate the poor and wish they were gone.
Click to expand...

Coal is also a source of mercury pollution among others:
coal power: wastes generated | Union of Concerned Scientists


> Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.
> 
> Toxic substances in the waste -- *including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium* -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by the disposal of coal plant waste.


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN. You just don't GET IT!!!  This thread is about independence from fossil fuels. I see two cons "liked" your post too
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a Dem, I just prefer sane environmental and economic policies.  I can show you case after case where environmetalists caused far more harm then the supposed "problem" they were trying to address.  Just like you.  Coal is abundant and cheap.  Yet your choice is to ban its use (effectively) and cause the economy to collapse all for the "greater good".  The rich once again will do fine in your perfect world but the poor, who you supposedly care about get screwed yet again.
> 
> Just admit it, you hate the poor and wish they were gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal is also a source of mercury pollution among others:
> coal power: wastes generated | Union of Concerned Scientists
> 
> 
> 
> Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.
> 
> Toxic substances in the waste -- *including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium* -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by the disposal of coal plant waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





Yes it is.  And it is _still_ a cleaner source of power than any of the "green" options.  The "green" energy producing systems all require expensive and rare elements to produce.
Try looking up how the people in the Third World are fairing mining the minerals needed to produce the "green" energy machinery.  They are dying in droves so you can feel good about yourself.

Everything we use for our modern society has a cost.  Coal is so far the cheapest in both cost and environmental damage (if controlled properly) then anything else out there.  Windmills are great till you look at what is emitted in their production.  

No environmental damage is permanent.  There are however many (too many) abandoned holes in the ground that will not be repaired because the controls we have today weren't in existence when the polluters were doing their damage.  That has stopped in the First World.

The environuts also love to trot out the tired old "peak oil" mantra.  Guess what the "green" energy systems will hit their peak long before oil will.  Lithium (an essential element in almost all "green" systems) is actually pretty rare and will run out within 25 years at current usage.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> The environuts also love to trot out the tired old "peak oil" mantra.



Well, maybe the really dumb ones. I think once a human being gains functionality in more than 5 brain cells, even they aren't stupid enough to trot that pony out anymore. They can still be an environut of course, they just aren't stupid enough to fall for the cult of peak oil at that point.


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a Dem, I just prefer sane environmental and economic policies.  I can show you case after case where environmetalists caused far more harm then the supposed "problem" they were trying to address.  Just like you.  Coal is abundant and cheap.  Yet your choice is to ban its use (effectively) and cause the economy to collapse all for the "greater good".  The rich once again will do fine in your perfect world but the poor, who you supposedly care about get screwed yet again.
> 
> Just admit it, you hate the poor and wish they were gone.
> 
> 
> 
> Coal is also a source of mercury pollution among others:
> coal power: wastes generated | Union of Concerned Scientists
> 
> 
> 
> Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments.
> 
> Toxic substances in the waste -- *including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium* -- can contaminate drinking water supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every 100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by the disposal of coal plant waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  And it is _still_ a cleaner source of power than any of the "green" options.  The "green" energy producing systems all require expensive and rare elements to produce.
> Try looking up how the people in the Third World are fairing mining the minerals needed to produce the "green" energy machinery.  They are dying in droves so you can feel good about yourself.
> 
> Everything we use for our modern society has a cost.  Coal is so far the cheapest in both cost and environmental damage (if controlled properly) then anything else out there.  Windmills are great till you look at what is emitted in their production.
> 
> No environmental damage is permanent.  There are however many (too many) abandoned holes in the ground that will not be repaired because the controls we have today weren't in existence when the polluters were doing their damage.  That has stopped in the First World.
> 
> The environuts also love to trot out the tired old "peak oil" mantra.  Guess what the "green" energy systems will hit their peak long before oil will.  Lithium (an essential element in almost all "green" systems) is actually pretty rare and will run out within 25 years at current usage.
Click to expand...


Notice how I provided proof for my assertion and you.....well.....


----------



## Dot Com

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environuts also love to trot out the tired old "peak oil" mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe the really dumb ones. I think once a human being gains functionality in more than 5 brain cells, even they aren't stupid enough any more to trot that pony out anymore. They can still be an environut of course, they just aren't stupid enough to fall for the cult of peak oil at that point.
Click to expand...


I mention that the U.S. has 4% of the worlds oil reserves so Palin's "Drill baby drill" mantra won't alter that.


----------



## dustythedog

Drill Baby Drill, hell yes for the short term lower gas prices will help get us out of this recession.But here's another thing that  can help. Require all new buildings to have enough solar panels to provide say 10% of their energy consumption. I'm not a scientist, and it may not be feasible in all buildings or all areas of the country. How hard would it be to put a wing turbine on a house, like we use on RVs. This would make one hell of a stimulus project. Tax credits for existing homeowners yes, low or no cost loans from the Government, yes. But secure those loans with liens that stay with the property until it's sold, But, One Big Catch. Every nut, bolt, solar panel. must be Made in the U.S.A. Take the old Maytag,  G.M., & ford factories and & put America back to work. Small businesses would sprout  up all over, people have to install the panels, maintain them, sell them, ship them! Jobs with meaning, and dignity At least Americans would get a Bang for their Buck. No it won't replace oil, nothing will in the near future. But hydrogen is looking better every day!
Dusty the dog


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environuts also love to trot out the tired old "peak oil" mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe the really dumb ones. I think once a human being gains functionality in more than 5 brain cells, even they aren't stupid enough to trot that pony out anymore. They can still be an environut of course, they just aren't stupid enough to fall for the cult of peak oil at that point.
Click to expand...


The worst part about you, Texas oil nerd, is that you're not only tragically wrong in every aspect of the energy:economy symbiosis, and that you're SUCH a complete dick about it all, but you're also attempting to misinform the unwitting at every turn.

You:







STFU and GTFO


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Are you really so stupid as to miss the point, or is my reliance on historical fact so far outside your religions teachings that they have nothing for you to cut and paste?
> 
> Discoveries declining was EXACTLY why there were claims of running out, pre WWI. As for your 40 year claim, that is incorrect as well. Global peak oil discoveries (flowing oil now, not that mining operation in Alberta) peaked in 1935. This is using the standard Colin Campbell backdating technique to hide the size of reserve growth of course. So discoveries of oil have been declining since that year, which puts declining discoveries at 76 years. Perhaps I can recommend a math course for you as well?



LOL... show a link backing up your laughable claim for once in your sorry posting existence, or admit that the only thing you're good at is defrauding those here who don't know any better (Ace & Gary, i.e. Samson and Westfall).

In the meantime, I'll show you a few more sources than merely Campbell's, mmm-kay, douchie?

*As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.*​





Perhaps Exxon is lying, even though they lead your cult of denial.





http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:169774

Surely, Uppsala Univ. is in on the "conspiracy" to "pretend" world discoveries peaked in the late 1960s also. Unsure who is funding their "fraudulent" research, however. 

One more thing, tough guy: You can trumpet victory all you like simply because I'm not a message board nerd like you are. I'm sorry I don't spend every waking day putting your daily fraud in proper persective, but I have far better things to do with my time than debate on a random message board like you do. When I have time to kill and nothing better to do, it's a catharsis to deal with RW nonsense. You being a perfect example. It takes me about 5 minutes to dissect your latest horse shit. ...  If that means I visit twice a month, so be it. But you don't ever "win" the discussion based on attendance. The fact that every time I make an appearance, you send yourself text alerts and hammer out the word "parrot" 50 more times. Could you BE more of an insecure loser?

Every time the rock is lifted off your bloated claims, the bugs scurry for shade. At this point, everyone here but Ace & Gary knows you're completely full of shit.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Perhaps Exxon is lying, even though they lead your cult of denial.



This is the classic, "lets only count the red shoes, womens, size 9, and claim that we are running out of them" graph.

It is smarter than you are. Notice it does say "conventional" in the title. Is there any reason why your church only counts oils of a certain density? Or is that too difficult of a question for a parrot?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Surely, Uppsala Univ. is in on the "conspiracy" to "pretend" world discoveries peaked in the late 1960s also. Unsure who is funding their "fraudulent" research, however.



Name a single oil field that Uppsala University has ever discovered. Drilled. Completed. Produced. Been asked by Ryder Scott to evaluate. Just one will do.

Tell us Jiggsy, of what value are studies done by people who have zero experience in the field in question?



			
				JiggsyCasey said:
			
		

> The fact that every time I make an appearance, you send yourself text alerts and hammer out the word "parrot" 50 more times. Could you BE more of an insecure loser?



Certainly with the censorship policies at your church forums this is a wonderful place to hang out. Haven't been censored once here, unlike your churches where censorship and random editing are the norm, lest the congregation starts thinking for itself.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Exxon is lying, even though they lead your cult of denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the classic, "lets only count the red shoes, womens, size 9, and claim that we are running out of them" graph.
> 
> It is smarter than you are. Notice it does say "conventional" in the title. Is there any reason why your church only counts oils of a certain density? Or is that too difficult of a question for a parrot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, Uppsala Univ. is in on the "conspiracy" to "pretend" world discoveries peaked in the late 1960s also. Unsure who is funding their "fraudulent" research, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name a single oil field that Uppsala University has ever discovered. Drilled. Completed. Produced. Been asked by Ryder Scott to evaluate. Just one will do.
> 
> Tell us Jiggsy, of what value are studies done by people who have zero experience in the field in question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsyCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that every time I make an appearance, you send yourself text alerts and hammer out the word "parrot" 50 more times. Could you BE more of an insecure loser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly with the censorship policies at your church forums this is a wonderful place to hang out. Haven't been censored once here, unlike your churches where censorship and random editing are the norm, lest the congregation starts thinking for itself.
Click to expand...


I think you've played every failed card in your arsenal in one piss-poor post.

- but, but, you're not counting the extra expensive oil discoveries!!!! why not??? (because nothing is more efficient nor abundant as oil has been)
- the source doesn't count, because it doesn't actually do the legwork of extraction, refinement, delivery, etc. (lol... wow, ok)
- you're just a zealot!!! (irony, little wildcatter ... irony)

By your logic, Bill Parcels never kicked a field goal, nor completed a pass against zone coverage, so he can't know a thing about football.

Tell me, is Warren Buffet a part of my alleged church? He admitted global oil production shortfall just this year. No doubt you know more than he does.


----------



## Dot Com

Addiction to oil was even recognized by the last Repub Pres. We keep putting all out eggs in one basket and subsidize the very companies who recorded record profits will mean disaster. Status quo isn't a good strategy here.


----------



## Bullhornman

Dot Com said:


> Addiction to oil was even recognized by the last Repub Pres. We keep putting all out eggs in one basket and subsidize the very companies who recorded record profits will mean disaster. Status quo isn't a good strategy here.




Tell that to the conTards.


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> Addiction to oil was even recognized by the last Repub Pres. We keep putting all out eggs in one basket and subsidize the very companies who recorded record profits will mean disaster. Status quo isn't a good strategy here.






Simple, stop driving.  Take your house off the grid and if enough people do that the use of oil will plummet.  The US has allready reached peak gas usage, we have been using less gas every year for the last 5 years.  Keep it up.


----------



## daveman

Dot Com said:


> Addiction to oil was even recognized by the last Repub Pres. We keep putting all out eggs in one basket and subsidize the very companies who recorded record profits will mean disaster. Status quo isn't a good strategy here.





Bullhornman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Addiction to oil was even recognized by the last Repub Pres. We keep putting all out eggs in one basket and subsidize the very companies who recorded record profits will mean disaster. Status quo isn't a good strategy here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the conTards.
Click to expand...

You guys might have a little credibility of you'd let us exploit our own resources.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> - but, but, you're not counting the extra expensive oil discoveries!!!! why not???



I am counting them parrot. The cheap oil is the oil already found. And that is where most new discoveries of oil are coming from nowadays, your inability to understand the EIA website aside.

The companies have known about this oil for years, and after they skim off the light and sweet, they then produce the heavy and ugly.

Both are oil. Both were discovered before that incident between you and mommy and her 'puter. Read a book already, learn to google, pay attention to something other than the propaganda of the day. How many trillions of barrels does this game have to cover before even the half wits notice?

US: BP commences Ugnu formation heavy oil test on Alaska's North Slope


----------



## rdean

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?



They like the idea of dependency.  For all their boasting about being "independent", they are the most dependent group of people in America.  A lack of education does that.  Oh, I'm sorry, I forget.  They have Bible degrees.


----------



## Mr. H.

The neat thing about the oil business is that Bucktard Jr. from No-ville, U.S. has little issue in finding a 2 barrel/day oilwell out in the middle of a cornfield. It's a decent living especially at $80/barrel. 

What's even neater is that there are nearly a half million such oilwells scattered across our lands. 
Marginal wells constitute a considerable portion of U.S. oil production- and each one contributes so much to Mr. Bucktard Jr., his wife and kids, the farmer that collects the royalty, the local taxing district, the state's tax base, and the nation's treasury. Buck boy Jr. purchases his equipment and supplies from local vendors who themselves have wives and kids. You get the picture. 

Don't discount marginal discoveries. Filling a bottomless bucket begins with a single drop. Ants are good at shit like that- building mounds with grains of sand. A journey begins with a single step. And so on. Folklore stuff.


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> They like the idea of dependency.


The reality is that the left prefers dependence.  You won't let us exploit our own resources, you won't let us build new nuke and hydro power plants, you want to eliminate the use of coal.  

Wind and solar are never going to replace the sources you want to eliminate.  NEVER.  

So you're keeping us dependent on foreign sources.  


rdean said:


> For all their boasting about being "independent", they are the most dependent group of people in America.


...says the guy who wants the government to make all his decisions for him, cradle to grave.  


rdean said:


> A lack of education does that.  Oh, I'm sorry, I forget.  They have Bible degrees.


Still claiming that 3% of all colleges give out more degrees than the other 97% put together, huh?  

Derp, why do you keep lying when reality so clearly contradicts what you say?  Are you really so simple-minded that you think your words define reality?  

Yes.  I think you are.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> - but, but, you're not counting the extra expensive oil discoveries!!!! why not???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am counting them parrot. The cheap oil is the oil already found. And that is where most new discoveries of oil are coming from nowadays, your inability to understand the EIA website aside.
> 
> The companies have known about this oil for years, and after they skim off the light and sweet, they then produce the heavy and ugly.
> 
> Both are oil. Both were discovered before that incident between you and mommy and her 'puter. Read a book already, learn to google, pay attention to something other than the propaganda of the day. How many trillions of barrels does this game have to cover before even the half wits notice?
> 
> US: BP commences Ugnu formation heavy oil test on Alaska's North Slope
Click to expand...


LOL. This from the fucking retard who dismisses net energy as a factor in determining efficiency.

If you have 500 billion barrels of synthetic oil that returns a paltry 2.5:1 EROEI... And I have 100 million barrels of sweet crude that returns 35:1 EROEI, who's economy is going to have an easier time expanding?

For the 100th time, Capt. Nothing to See Here: You can't take an apple and call it an orange. Inflating U.S. reserves by suddenly (and conveniently) including extra heavy, enormously expensive "oil" from rock and clay formations doesn't change the equation that way you hope.

The global economy runs on cheap energy. Unfortunately, synthetic oils from bitumen, or kerogen are not "cheap," nor are their production rates nearly enough to make a dent in our overall consumption.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> - but, but, you're not counting the extra expensive oil discoveries!!!! why not???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am counting them parrot. The cheap oil is the oil already found. And that is where most new discoveries of oil are coming from nowadays, your inability to understand the EIA website aside.
> 
> The companies have known about this oil for years, and after they skim off the light and sweet, they then produce the heavy and ugly.
> 
> Both are oil. Both were discovered before that incident between you and mommy and her 'puter. Read a book already, learn to google, pay attention to something other than the propaganda of the day. How many trillions of barrels does this game have to cover before even the half wits notice?
> 
> US: BP commences Ugnu formation heavy oil test on Alaska's North Slope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. This from the fucking retard who dismisses net energy as a factor in determining efficiency.
> 
> If you have 500 billion barrels of synthetic oil that returns a paltry 2.5:1 EROEI... And I have 100 million barrels of sweet crude that returns 35:1 EROEI, who's economy is going to have an easier time expanding?
> 
> For the 100th time, Capt. Nothing to See Here: You can't take an apple and call it an orange. Inflating U.S. reserves by suddenly (and conveniently) including extra heavy, enormously expensive "oil" from rock and clay formations doesn't change the equation that way you hope.
> 
> The global economy runs on cheap energy. Unfortunately, synthetic oils from bitumen, or kerogen are not "cheap," nor are their production rates nearly enough to make a dent in our overall consumption.
Click to expand...


Fascinating.

Despite all you bluster, private industry will invest $7,000,000,000.00 to move syncrude from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast



> The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast would not have "significant impacts" on the environment, the State Department has concluded, removing a major barrier to construction of the $7-billion project



Do we trust the Squakings of Jiggs, the likes of whom have been babbling about "Peak Oil" for the past century... Or do we trust an industry that has proven to be the most profitable in the world?


----------



## Dot Com

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am counting them parrot. The cheap oil is the oil already found. And that is where most new discoveries of oil are coming from nowadays, your inability to understand the EIA website aside.
> 
> The companies have known about this oil for years, and after they skim off the light and sweet, they then produce the heavy and ugly.
> 
> Both are oil. Both were discovered before that incident between you and mommy and her 'puter. Read a book already, learn to google, pay attention to something other than the propaganda of the day. How many trillions of barrels does this game have to cover before even the half wits notice?
> 
> US: BP commences Ugnu formation heavy oil test on Alaska's North Slope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. This from the fucking retard who dismisses net energy as a factor in determining efficiency.
> 
> If you have 500 billion barrels of synthetic oil that returns a paltry 2.5:1 EROEI... And I have 100 million barrels of sweet crude that returns 35:1 EROEI, who's economy is going to have an easier time expanding?
> 
> For the 100th time, Capt. Nothing to See Here: You can't take an apple and call it an orange. Inflating U.S. reserves by suddenly (and conveniently) including extra heavy, enormously expensive "oil" from rock and clay formations doesn't change the equation that way you hope.
> 
> The global economy runs on cheap energy. Unfortunately, synthetic oils from bitumen, or kerogen are not "cheap," nor are their production rates nearly enough to make a dent in our overall consumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Despite all you bluster, private industry will invest $7,000,000,000.00 to move syncrude from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast would not have "significant impacts" on the environment, the State Department has concluded, removing a major barrier to construction of the $7-billion project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we trust the Squakings of Jiggs, the likes of whom have been babbling about "Peak Oil" for the past century... Or do we trust an industry that has proven to be the most profitable in the world?
Click to expand...

They do sooo well that they need subsidies  Seriously, they do FABULOUSLY well, profit-wise, so why the subsidies?
Obama calls on Boehner to follow through on cutting oil subsidies - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL. This from the fucking retard who dismisses net energy as a factor in determining efficiency.



Last I heard you were going to give me 5 barrels of oil, if I would just give you 2 in return. I am still waiting for my 5 barrels math genius and EROEI specialist.

Might I recommend parroting your answers from a calculator next time, rather than doing the sums in your head?


----------



## Samson

Dot Com said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. This from the fucking retard who dismisses net energy as a factor in determining efficiency.
> 
> If you have 500 billion barrels of synthetic oil that returns a paltry 2.5:1 EROEI... And I have 100 million barrels of sweet crude that returns 35:1 EROEI, who's economy is going to have an easier time expanding?
> 
> For the 100th time, Capt. Nothing to See Here: You can't take an apple and call it an orange. Inflating U.S. reserves by suddenly (and conveniently) including extra heavy, enormously expensive "oil" from rock and clay formations doesn't change the equation that way you hope.
> 
> The global economy runs on cheap energy. Unfortunately, synthetic oils from bitumen, or kerogen are not "cheap," nor are their production rates nearly enough to make a dent in our overall consumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating.
> 
> Despite all you bluster, private industry will invest $7,000,000,000.00 to move syncrude from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast would not have "significant impacts" on the environment, the State Department has concluded, removing a major barrier to construction of the $7-billion project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we trust the Squakings of Jiggs, the likes of whom have been babbling about "Peak Oil" for the past century... Or do we trust an industry that has proven to be the most profitable in the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do sooo well that they need subsidies  Seriously, they do FABULOUSLY well, profit-wise, so why the subsidies?
> Obama calls on Boehner to follow through on cutting oil subsidies - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...


Agreed: Let's eliminate all gov't subsidies.


----------



## Dragon

westwall said:


> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.



Westwall to drowning man: "Hey, no worries! Water isn't dangerous. It's an essential nutrient! You need it to survive! Life on earth couldn't even exist without water!"

Drowning man: "That's [glub] reassuring."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westwall to drowning man: "Hey, no worries! Water isn't dangerous. It's an essential nutrient! You need it to survive! Life on earth couldn't even exist without water!"
> 
> Drowning man: "That's [glub] reassuring."
Click to expand...


Global Warming "Scientists" view testing their theories in a lab like they were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a garlic field.


----------



## Dragon

CrusaderFrank said:


> Global Warming "Scientists" view testing their theories in a lab like they were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a garlic field.



How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

Heard Island global warming test - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

Those were just two examples that came up in a Google search for Global Warming Lab Tests. AGW is tested in laboratories -- chemical, physical, mathematical -- all the time.


----------



## peach174

Dot Com said:


> Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil reserves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling"  to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?




Your information is wrong Dot.
America has the most oil and coal.

Before It's News

The left do not want you to know this.
Also they don't want you to know that many waste plants are producing electricity at a very cheep rate rather that solar and wind energy.
Here is one example;
Welcome - Wheelabrator Tech. USA
There are many more doing this. The Left do not want the general public to know about these plants.


----------



## Dragon

peach174 said:


> Your information is wrong Dot.
> America has the most oil



Try using reliable sources:

Crude Oil Advisory

"Thus, in the quest for knowing the worlds biggest crude oil producers, let us first get acquainted with the top 5 countries with maximum proven crude oil reserves (as listed by the World Factbook for 2009):

    Saudi Arabia
    Canada
    Iran
    Iraq
    Kuwait"

Note that the U.S. isn't even in the top five.

Here's a more complete list: Oil Reserves By Country 2011

The U.S. is no. 13, just ahead of China and behind Qatar.


----------



## Samson

Dragon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.  CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you.  It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westwall to drowning man: "Hey, no worries! Water isn't dangerous. It's an essential nutrient! You need it to survive! Life on earth couldn't even exist without water!"
> 
> Drowning man: "That's [glub] reassuring."
Click to expand...


Its just this kind of stupidity that reduces any credability the Al Gore crowd has.

Reminds me of a recent September 29 article in _Rolling Stone_, listing the "10 Things Obama MUST DO for the Environment." Essentially it was a 4 page rant (including pictures: it is, after all, _Rolling Stone_) related to reducing carbon emmissions.

Also included in the same issue of _Rolling Stone_ was a three page ad for the Dodge Journey, which gets 19 mpg city/26 mpg hwy, and a one page ad for the Jeep Compass; 23 mpg city/26 mpg hwy "Reborn and Redefined for the FREE and the BRAVE."

Ironically #7 on the list of _Rolling Stone's_ Admonisments to Obama is: MAKE CONSERVATION PATRIOTIC. How? "Decree that the Federal Government only buy hybrids and electric vehicles..."


----------



## Samson

Dragon said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your information is wrong Dot.
> America has the most oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using reliable sources:
> .
Click to expand...


Try not losing credability by purposeful misquotes



peach174 said:


> Your information is wrong Dot.
> America has the most oil and COAL



We should also add natural gas, but that might exceed your capacity fo follow the discussion.


----------



## Dragon

Samson said:


> Its just this kind of stupidity that reduces any credability the Al Gore crowd has.



It's just this kind of stupidity that shows you have no argument against what I said and must resort to ad homs in desperation.

The (incredibly stupid) claim was made, not by you, that CO2 was not dangerous because life needed it to survive. I made the obvious rebuttal: the problem we have is not that CO2 exists but that there is too much of it. I did this by analogy, showing that water, also a necessity of life, can still be the cause of death.

And this is the best you can do in response? Pathetic.


----------



## Samson

Dragon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its just this kind of stupidity that reduces any credability the Al Gore crowd has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just this kind of stupidity that shows you have no argument against what I said and must resort to ad homs in desperation.
> 
> The (incredibly stupid) claim was made, not by you, that CO2 was not dangerous because life needed it to survive. I made the obvious rebuttal: the problem we have is not that CO2 exists but that there is too much of it. I did this by analogy, showing that water, also a necessity of life, can still be the cause of death.
> 
> And this is the best you can do in response? Pathetic.
Click to expand...


What is pathetic is your absolute inability to respond to an entire post, and edit quotes.


----------



## Dragon

Samson said:


> What is pathetic is your absolute inability to respond to an entire post, and edit quotes.



Sorry if that gives you difficulties in formulating a coherent response -- not.

Look, the post I was responding to, that you quoted, was not complicated and I quoted the entire post to which I responded. He was saying that because plants need CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere can't be a problem. Do you really claim you can't see the fallacy in that? Really?

As for the other post, I took the essence of it, since in the remainder which I didn't quote (for sake of brevity only, not deception), the poster made the explicit claim that U.S. OIL reserves -- not oil and coal together -- were greater than the whole Middle East combined. They're not.

The problems with coal have already been stated and I saw no need to repeat what others had already said: most of the coal in the U.S. is low-grade without high energy density, and of course coal has massive environmental problems including, but not limited to, global warming. It should be our absolute LAST choice to replace oil, behind even nuclear power.

There is so much factual misinformation being propagated from anti-greens on this thread it boggles the mind.


----------



## Dot Com

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global Warming "Scientists" view testing their theories in a lab like they were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a garlic field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
> 
> Heard Island global warming test - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)
> 
> Those were just two examples that came up in a Google search for Global Warming Lab Tests. AGW is tested in laboratories -- chemical, physical, mathematical -- all the time.
Click to expand...


57Frank is alright once you get to know him


----------



## peach174

I can't help it if you believe the lies that are out there by the left and environmentalists.

North Dakota oil production forecast to surpass Alaska's: Oil | Alaska news at adn.com

Rocky Mountain Oil


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global Warming "Scientists" view testing their theories in a lab like they were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a garlic field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
> 
> Heard Island global warming test - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)
> 
> Those were just two examples that came up in a Google search for Global Warming Lab Tests. AGW is tested in laboratories -- chemical, physical, mathematical -- all the time.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand what an experiment is.

Can you show me one single repeatable laboratory experiment that isolates all variables save for a 100PPM increase in CO2?

I have over 22,000 posts here, you think one silly Google search is going to demolish my argument?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global Warming "Scientists" view testing their theories in a lab like they were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a garlic field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
> 
> Heard Island global warming test - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)
> 
> Those were just two examples that came up in a Google search for Global Warming Lab Tests. AGW is tested in laboratories -- chemical, physical, mathematical -- all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 57Frank is alright once you get to know him
Click to expand...


Made me laugh pos rep inbound!  Duck!


----------



## Mr. H.

I had a license plate that said OIL IS OK


----------



## Dot Com

The Randians are trying to open ANWAR to drilling AGAIN  It has been mentioned that there aint much there anyway and Prudhoe Bay is already open to drilling. Deepwater Horizon ring a bell to anyone?
Live Hearings - House Committee on Natural Resources
http://arctic.fws.gov/


----------



## Dot Com

These Repubs have sided w/ the Democrats on this issue  : Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America)


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Dot Com

You Randians just don't get it. The world isn't yours to sell & despoil!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Earth: the only place in the Solar System that requires velicoraptors processed over geological time to make hydrocarbons.

No, really.

We swear.


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> You Randians just don't get it. The world isn't yours to sell & despoil!!!







You're correct.  Unplug your house from the grid and stop driving.  If enough of you do that the demand will disappear and the companies will close down.


----------



## Dot Com

westwall said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Randians just don't get it. The world isn't yours to sell & despoil!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct.  Unplug your house from the grid and stop driving.  If enough of you do that the demand will disappear and the companies will close down.
Click to expand...


Thats what Libertarians are supposed to do.


----------



## westwall

Dot Com said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Randians just don't get it. The world isn't yours to sell & despoil!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct.  Unplug your house from the grid and stop driving.  If enough of you do that the demand will disappear and the companies will close down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats what Libertarians are supposed to do.
Click to expand...






No, that's what every non hypocritical environmentalist does.  Darryl Hannah has done it, Ed Begley Jr. has done it, now you should too.


----------

