PDA

View Full Version : The Energy Non-Crisis



robertb
06-15-2008, 01:32 PM
Guys,
I've read quite a bit of the discussion on here about gas prices and it's enlightening. I make good money but I also drives 19K miles a year to/from work. Therefore, the gas is definitely affecting my discretionary income.

With that said, I was pointed to this link recently and it was an eye-opener:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

I don't know what to think at this point but I could see where we are screwed coming and going within the "global" economy. This video is an hour long and it starts off slow. However, it will have you looking at these gas prices in a while new light. Take the time and watch...Wagner does state who he thinks is behind all of this mess.

Phil Deese
06-15-2008, 07:00 PM
Very interesting!!! I'm like you....a real eye opener. It does seem to connect all the dots as far as Iran and other oil producing nations are concerned. Could it be that Israel or America could soon be planning an attack??

Big Al
06-15-2008, 07:10 PM
I've watched all eight segments. I came away feeling that much of what this minister has to say, I've read before. I think anyone that lived through the 1970's fraud on gasoline knew that someday this would happen. The last time it came to a screeching halt was do to the rapid clamor for coal gasification.

The fix is in, there is not a snowball chance in hades of our politicians fixing this one. They do not have the will. Or they have been paid or the GREENIES have scared them off.

Phil Deese
06-15-2008, 07:47 PM
You live in Alaska....any truth to what he says about the natural gas and oil there??

vicvanb
06-15-2008, 08:00 PM
The fix is in, there is not a snowball chance in hades of our politicians fixing this one. They do not have the will. Or they have been paid or the GREENIES have scared them off.

You give the environmentalists WAY too much power. They are responsible for a tiny fraction of the overall energy problem but are an easy scapegoat.

We can't drill our way to energy independence unless we drastically reduce our oil consumption--something the environmentalists have known for years.

vinny
06-15-2008, 09:56 PM
You give the environmentalists WAY too much power. They are responsible for a tiny fraction of the overall energy problem but are an easy scapegoat.

We can't drill our way to energy independence unless we drastically reduce our oil consumption--something the environmentalists have known for years.

Why are there so few Nuclear Power Plants, or gas refineries? What about the refineries that can convert coal to liquid fuel or the factory conversions from oil burning facilities to coal burning facilities! Why aren't we drilling in the lower 48 or off our own shores. I give the GREENIES all the props for the lack of U.S. energy independence. I suppose our energy problem is our own fault because we consume way too much oil! Yep that's it, blame the Americans!

Bill Wynne
06-15-2008, 10:15 PM
I have heard several talking heads on TV saying that we cannot drill our way out of this oil problem.

The only footprints on the moon are American. We are the same people aren't we?

We have to oil, the question is do we have the resolve?

Concho Bill:)

Crusader
06-15-2008, 10:59 PM
We cant drill our way out of it, because the current high price of oil has nothing to do with oil, but it does have something to do with our falling dollar ( as well as inflation off all other paper money supplies). Fix our paper money issues and much of our so call oil problem will go away.

(note: Im not saying that there isnt a growing world demand for oil, there is, and this will eventually become a real problem, but our current problem has very little to do with it)

The problem is the Federal Reserve and all associated with it.

LHSmith
06-15-2008, 11:59 PM
I have heard several talking heads on TV saying that we cannot drill our way out of this oil problem.

The only footprints on the moon are American. We are the same people aren't we?

We have to oil, the question is do we have the resolve?

Concho Bill:)



The America that I grew up with did not have that word "can't" in their vernacular.......................we most definitly CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............it's just that we have been brainwashed by the greenies that we DON'T WANT TO!!

But, alas America is bad, we even "staged" those lunar episodes....a mere paper tiger.

Beam me up ,Scottie..........NOW!

Chuck Bogardus
06-16-2008, 12:08 AM
Here's the fun part...

If they let us drill, they won't let us move it.

They won't let us build new refineries.

They'll insist that each metro area, and the outlying states, needs it own special and unique blend.

And then some farm lobby will insist that they blend 10% ethanol with it...

LHSmith
06-16-2008, 12:18 AM
Here's the fun part...

If they let us drill, they won't let us move it.

They won't let us build new refineries.

They'll insist that each metro area, and the outlying states, needs it own special and unique blend.

And then some farm lobby will insist that they blend 10% ethanol with it...



...................that nobody mentions lately..................the nightmare for refineries to produce the proper blend as "REGULATED" by each state....a logistical nightmare...........totally unnecessary.

vicvanb
06-16-2008, 12:39 PM
I have heard several talking heads on TV saying that we cannot drill our way out of this oil problem.

The only footprints on the moon are American. We are the same people aren't we?

We have to oil, the question is do we have the resolve?

Concho Bill:)

Simple answer--there are no more major oil fields left to discover. The planet's oil reserves are finite. When they are exhausted our supply is gone.

You are right about our technological ability, but it won't produce more oil. We need to set about using our talents to develop alternatives to oil.

LHSmith
06-16-2008, 05:57 PM
...............there's still oil in the ground and the early bird catches the worm.

Do you feel confident in that statement about no more major oil fields to be discovered......................I don't think we have become that adept at estimating the amount of oil in a given "field"........and do you realize how many square miles the earth encompasses?

This is in reference to crude oil, then you have to consider oil recovered from shale.

Perhaps you guys are throwing the bath water out with the poor baby still in it.

We need actual numbers, NOT conjecture................and the oil companies feel it is a worthwhile business risk to continue drilling. How many members of Congress are geologists?....................yeah........... they're mostly lawyers............what does THAT tell you? Their goal is to get re-elected, the geologists goal is to retain employment.

AND..............technology certainly can "produce" more oil by the simple fact that more ingenious recovery/drilling methods will make previously unattainable oil available, such as "slant drilling."

let's face it, the internal combustion engine is being demonized by a select few..................and come hell or high water they will not rest until the U.S. is reduced to a mere pittance of what it once was...........all in the name of fairness.

How about you give that neighbor whose not as well off some of your treasures...............if your not willing, then your a hypocrite.

Bill Wynne
06-16-2008, 06:21 PM
Simple answer--there are no more major oil fields left to discover. The planet's oil reserves are finite. When they are exhausted our supply is gone.

You are right about our technological ability, but it won't produce more oil. We need to set about using our talents to develop alternatives to oil.

I have noticed this type of thinking lately.

When any problem develops there is a camp full of people who will tell you why a thing cannot be done. We call them losers.:) Don't join their camp.

Our country was built by those who did things. Do we remember the names of those who told Henry Ford that he could not build an affordable automobile?

I will agree that we produce alternate fuels. We can do Both.

Concho Bill

Phil Deese
06-16-2008, 06:31 PM
Yea, This Don and vicvanb guy come out of the closet to thown-in their Obama thoughts on our posts.....then Don sticks some post up that trashes any republican and vicvanb climbs on!!! Just a couple from the other side to try and cause confusion. Obama's bed mates!!

vicvanb
06-16-2008, 06:39 PM
Bill,

Some people deal with reality--the way things are, not the way we wish they were. When the old ways no longer work, they seek new ways. We call them winners.

The oil companies have scoured the earth for new fields and come up empty. I don't think there's a square mile that has not had its geology assessed for oil potential. And all the geology with oil potential has been explored.

It's not a matter of thinking small. It is a matter of facing reality and coming up with creative stategies for the future. We are not going to run out of oil real soon and until we do there is too much money left to be made in oil for those pushing the oil agenda. A lot of those folks live in Texas--your neighbors! We call them...............Texans!

Paul Fielder
06-16-2008, 06:45 PM
....for oil down here in South TX. LOTS of seismographing right now.

We just got a notice to expect it on our deer lease we hunt. 7,000 acres and no known natural gas in the area.....specifically LOOKING for oil. Why spend the $$$ if it has all been found?? Very expensive to do if nothing is there or left to discover.....maybe they are just looking for the scraps???

We are welcoming it as we need some new roads / senderos.


Don posts the same articles I read in the daily paper......

pf

LHSmith
06-16-2008, 07:05 PM
Bill,

Some people deal with reality--the way things are, not the way we wish they were. When the old ways no longer work, they seek new ways. We call them winners.

The oil companies have scoured the earth for new fields and come up empty. I don't think there's a square mile that has not had its geology assessed for oil potential. And all the geology with oil potential has been explored.

It's not a matter of thinking small. It is a matter of facing reality and coming up with creative stategies for the future. We are not going to run out of oil real soon and until we do there is too much money left to be made in oil for those pushing the oil agenda. A lot of those folks live in Texas--your neighbors! We call them...............Texans!



I don't want the advice of someone who "thinks", or "feels", I want cold, hard facts. The oil companies are willing to put their money where their mouth is...............are you willing to invest your own money (not mine, not uncle sam's) in your algore schemes or ethanol or what ever.

BTW without our "oil agenda" we would be part of the "master race"--------well, at least SOME of us?/you? would.

Phil Deese
06-16-2008, 07:38 PM
LH,
This vicvanb is a liberal that thinks he's going to change our minds.....DREAM ON!!!

The Drill-Nothing Congress
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy: The average price for regular gas hit $4 a gallon over the weekend. Gas prices have risen 75% since Nancy Pelosi took over. Where's the energy independence Democrats promised two years ago?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In November of 2006, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi issued a press release touting the Democrats' "common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."

She accused the oil companies of "price gouging." The price of gasoline when the Democrats took control of Congress was around $2.25 per gallon.

The average price of regular gas crept over the $4-per-gallon barrier over the weekend, as measured by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

That represents a more than 75% increase in the retail price of a gallon of gasoline on Pelosi's watch. Call it the "Pelosi premium" we're all now paying.

It's a problem driven by domestic supply restrictions imposed by the Democratic Congress in the face of growing worldwide demand. The Democrats preach energy independence while they do everything in their power to prevent it. If the American people truly want change, this would be it.

A Gallup poll released in May showed that 57% of the American people wanted the U.S. to drill in coastal and wilderness areas. The percentage of Americans who bought Pelosi's line about price gouging fell from 34% in May 2007 to 20% in May 2008. It could be a winning issue for the Republicans and John McCain.

More than 15 billion barrels of oil have been sent down the Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, some 60 miles to the west of ANWR, over the past three decades, much more than the six months' supply expected in the beginning by those who predicted a similar environmental disaster there.

The local caribou and other critters have thrived. Yet, Pelosi and the Democrats want to to keep ANWR's estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil off the market and out of our gas tanks.

Phil Deese
06-16-2008, 08:18 PM
The Pelosi Premium!!!

Bill Wynne
06-16-2008, 09:25 PM
Bill,

Some people deal with reality--the way things are, not the way we wish they were. When the old ways no longer work, they seek new ways. We call them winners.

The oil companies have scoured the earth for new fields and come up empty. I don't think there's a square mile that has not had its geology assessed for oil potential. And all the geology with oil potential has been explored.

It's not a matter of thinking small. It is a matter of facing reality and coming up with creative stategies for the future. We are not going to run out of oil real soon and until we do there is too much money left to be made in oil for those pushing the oil agenda. A lot of those folks live in Texas--your neighbors! We call them...............Texans!

To quote a Yankee Democrat from New England, "Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why'? I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not'?":) He sounded like a Texan. :)

If I had not lived in Texas I might not be so positive. I hold nothing against any of my neighbors who have ranches the size of some counties with oil wells all over them and now wind turbines cropping up as far as the eye can see. I hold nothing against my neighbors who work in the oil fields or the machine shops so I can drive my cars on gasoline. It does bother me somewhat when someone from an area of the country that does not pull it's part of the load expresses an attitude of defeat. They have already been defeated.

This is a great state and I love it. I can say for certain that we are doing our part to help this country. We have done it for years. We will do it for a lot longer and we are not the only ones.:)

Concho Bill

RayfromTX
06-16-2008, 09:39 PM
Oil is getting harder and harder to find.

In 1902 spindletop alone produced 17 million barrels.

EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. World consumption would cover that same football field two miles deep every day!

Interesting link http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Texas has been a net importer of energy since 1991.

The US produces just over 5 million barrels a day from just over 500,000 wells. Saudi arabia produces 10 million barrels a day from 1500 wells.

Every field has a discovery, a peak and a decline.

Every country has a discovery of oil, a peak of production and a decline. The US peaked in 1970. Texas production peaked in 1973. The north sea fields peaked 3 years ago.

The saudi fields will also peak as will global production. The only question is when.

vicvanb
06-17-2008, 12:43 AM
.....maybe they are just looking for the scraps???



You got it!!!! Of course there is potential for more drilling and with oil at $135per barrel it pays to look. But the MAJOR fields are already discovered.

vicvanb
06-17-2008, 12:45 AM
Oil is getting harder and harder to find.

In 1902 spindletop alone produced 17 million barrels.

EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. World consumption would cover that same football field two miles deep every day!

Interesting link http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Texas has been a net importer of energy since 1991.

The US produces just over 5 million barrels a day from just over 500,000 wells. Saudi arabia produces 10 million barrels a day from 1500 wells.

Every field has a discovery, a peak and a decline.

Every country has a discovery of oil, a peak of production and a decline. The US peaked in 1970. Texas production peaked in 1973. The north sea fields peaked 3 years ago.

The saudi fields will also peak as will global production. The only question is when.

Thank you, Ray. You are absolutely correct. Some experts predict that global production already peaked.

Chuck Bogardus
06-17-2008, 12:49 AM
I'd suggest that you ask one of our oil-producer shooters about the values... Do you pump it today, and make a little, or do you wait, and pump it a bit further on, and make a bundle?

Of course, some of you may not know any of our oil producer shooters, because some of you don't shoot benchrest.

vicvanb
06-17-2008, 01:00 AM
More than 15 billion barrels of oil have been sent down the Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, some 60 miles to the west of ANWR, over the past three decades, much more than the six months' supply expected in the beginning by those who predicted a similar environmental disaster there.

The local caribou and other critters have thrived. Yet, Pelosi and the Democrats want to to keep ANWR's estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil off the market and out of our gas tanks.

Phil, you need to get your facts straight.

The Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound was North Slope oil and it was an environmental disaster.

Prudhoe Bay is a huge industrial complex with environmental effects yet to be fully assessed.

The caribou herd near the pipeline has not exactly "thrived." Are you saying an industrial complex is good for caribou? Besides, it's apples and oranges with ANWR where development would take place on the calving ground of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. This herd has no alternative calving ground. Prudhoe Bay is not on the calving ground of the Central arctic Herd.

Who cares if the Porcupine caribou are heavily impacted? The Gwitchin native people have relied on North Slope caribou for centuries. And yes, I know the natives at Kaktovik have sold out their inland cousins and bought the propaganda of the oil companies promising good jobs--until the field is dry and they pull out of the country with nothing left behind.

vicvanb
06-17-2008, 01:06 AM
Do you pump it today, and make a little, or do you wait, and pump it a bit further on, and make a bundle?


Make a little by pumping today???? Man, at $135/barrel how much more do you want?

There's a good chance that oil will drop back to $100 and settle there. If I was a producer I'd sell now before I lost $35/barrel.

Chuck Bogardus
06-17-2008, 02:31 AM
Make a little by pumping today???? Man, at $135/barrel how much more do you want?

Well, looks like someone doesn't shoot a whole heckuva lot of benchrest...

Phil Deese
06-17-2008, 09:24 AM
I think you need to get your facts straight!! Most of the information you bring forward here are from liberial web sites.....The information I have is from Investors Business Daily........If there is no oil left why are the Chinese considering drilling off of our coasts.....and why do the oil companies want to drill here........I think there is much propaganda floating around, but do we continue to listen to people like you or do we try another approach?? The oil companies are willing to make the investment to drill.......I know I wouldn't invest my money and time if there wasn't any hope of finding oil. You keep paying the "Pelosi Premium" most of us will try something different for a change....begging the Arabs won't continue forever....with a war coming there, and their supply possibly tapped out in the coming years we must do something to become self reliant....I don't think waiting for the "Silver Bullet" to our energy crisis is the right approach!!

vicvanb
06-17-2008, 01:10 PM
Most of the information you bring forward here are from liberial web sites.....

Sorry, Phil, but you are wrong (again). I look at no liberal websites, or for that matter, conservative websites. Neither has accurate information.

The caribou information on the North Slope comes from biologist friends who have no dog in the ANWR fight. Wasn't it you who said there were few geologists in Congress?? If you respect the opinion of geologist experts regarding oil drilling, I would think you'd respect biologists regarding the impact of oil development on caribou, but I guess not.

tylerw02
06-17-2008, 01:33 PM
Sorry, Phil, but you are wrong (again). I look at no liberal websites, or for that matter, conservative websites. Neither has accurate information.

The caribou information on the North Slope comes from biologist friends who have no dog in the ANWR fight. Wasn't it you who said there were few geologists in Congress?? If you respect the opinion of geologist experts regarding oil drilling, I would think you'd respect biologists regarding the impact of oil development on caribou, but I guess not.

Just curious, if they have no dog in the fight in ANWR, what is the basis of their opinion? Where did they get their information?

Big Al
06-17-2008, 01:51 PM
You give the environmentalists WAY too much power. They are responsible for a tiny fraction of the overall energy problem but are an easy scapegoat.

We can't drill our way to energy independence unless we drastically reduce our oil consumption--something the environmentalists have known for years.

So then you think you know the capacity of undiscovered oil fields? Does that really sound possible?

History proves you wrong! Even with other mineral developments in our history. What you think you know on this subject, flies in the face of history.

The last time this was pulled off in the 1970's, it only took the threat of coal gasification to break the back on the propaganda fraud. It in fact caused the price at the pump (which was over a buck) to fall to 0.35 cents per gallon and the oil shortage went away.

Of course if you didn't live through this time as a consumer, you would not have any memory of this event.

We as Americans have tunnel vision, we seem to know only what the media puts before us. Get off your A$$ america and do your own investigations.

Do not except what others tell you (including this post) find out for your own self. It's the only way to be sure.

There are just to many rumors that people believe to be fact.

Here is the biggest problem, we just do not understand the devaluation of our currency, this is the total fault of government, which is why none of the politicians are talking about it. It's easier to understand if you compare it to other currency.

As with so many other problems, you need to go to the source (or being) of the problem to understand the direction it's taking us.

Now comes the reason, in my opinion this is happening. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. I believe that's why we are being manipulated.

chino69
06-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Why are there so few Nuclear Power Plants?

Several reasons.
Cancellation of the breeder reactor program, prohibitive construction/licensing costs, misinformation, spent fuel costs, etc.

I believe you will see a resurgence of nuclear power construction in the near future. The new plants will consist of a generically designed, pre-licensed unit. The new units will incorporate many of the design improvements over three decades of commercial nuclear operation.

Just some facts to ponder. The max. generation of the Hoover Dam is 2074 megawatts of power. A dual unit nuclear plant produces over 2200 megawatts of power for a two year cycle befor refueling.

Chino69

Paul Fielder
06-17-2008, 02:14 PM
....I have hunted around drilling rigs all my life and never had one incident. Used to shoot deer and yotes on the what we called the christmas tree pads once they were done all the time.

Just because we had one drunk captain make a spill doesn't mean safeguards will not be in place and it will happen again. Their fear of being sued from a disaster would have them on their toes w/ lots of safeguards in place. Can accidents happen, sure....but not drilling cuz of the "what if's" is just dumb. What if I get in a wreck on the way to the grocery store?? Maybe I should just stay home and order a pizza.

I for one hope the owners of the ranch we hunt on hit paydirt on the 'scraps'!!

Let the caribou walk around the rig.....good grief. They are not the brightest animal on the planet. Ever watch those hunting shows?? I bet more caribou are killed with a bow than any other big game.

pf

Phil Deese
06-17-2008, 06:12 PM
I don't know about most of you, but my Tahoe won't run on caribou poop or the democrats empty promises {even though I think they both have about the same octane rating} this vicvanb is just another liberial that thinks things will get better without doing nothing!!! I saw a poll on Fox News today were 67% agree to drilling in ANWR.... only 18% oppose.......sounds like vicvanb and his friends are in the minority!! The other 15% don't know if their afoot or horseback!!!

McCain his picked-up the fight on our side, which will definitely improve his chances of getting elected!!!

All Obama wants to do is raise taxes on the oil companies, which will be passed on to GUESS WHO you and me!! Echos of Jimmy Carter all over again!!

Big Al
06-17-2008, 06:14 PM
In fact there is a hunt either side of the haul road for five miles (10 miles total) for caribou that requires the use of those pointy sticks.

Paul Fielder
06-17-2008, 06:20 PM
rigs offshore too!!

Stupid anti's......go get the oil!!

pf

vinny
06-17-2008, 06:33 PM
Several reasons.
Cancellation of the breeder reactor program, prohibitive construction/licensing costs, misinformation, spent fuel costs, etc.

I believe you will see a resurgence of nuclear power construction in the near future. The new plants will consist of a generically designed, pre-licensed unit. The new units will incorporate many of the design improvements over three decades of commercial nuclear operation.

Just some facts to ponder. The max. generation of the Hoover Dam is 2074 megawatts of power. A dual unit nuclear plant produces over 2200 megawatts of power for a two year cycle befor refueling.

Chino69

Chino
The point I was trying to make was "If not for the screaming meme GREENIES"
we would have a diversity of power and fuel sources. We would, as I am sure any fair minded individual would agree that American ingenuity if left unrestricted could accomplish much, much more then the left care to admit. I am very convinced that the "Environmentalists" own a big part of our dependence on foreign oil. They, GREENIES or the Gores of the country place restrictions on American resolve!
vinny

chino69
06-17-2008, 07:09 PM
Chino
The point I was trying to make was "If not for the screaming meme GREENIES"
we would have a diversity of power and fuel sources. We would, as I am sure any fair minded individual would agree that American ingenuity if left unrestricted could accomplish much, much more then the left care to admit. I am very convinced that the "Environmentalists" own a big part of our dependence on foreign oil. They, GREENIES or the Gores of the country place restrictions on American resolve!
vinny

Vinny,
I agree with you in saying that the 'GREENIES' share a large part of our current energy crisis. In the 80's, the trend was against nuclear power because of the waste. I would like to point out that the breeder reactor program was cancelled by Jimmy Carter. The other thing I would like to point out is that the very people that opposed nuclear power in the 80's are now starting to see that it is the only viable large scale producer of energy and does not contribute to global warming.

The 'GREENIES' and their agenda helped drive up the cost of nuclear power plant production due to their politics. Here are some facts to consider. In 1974 The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station came on line at a total cost of 700 million dollars. This is a dual unit BWR that produces over 2200 megawatts and is still operating. Peach Bottom's sister plant, Limerick, came on line in 1984 at a total cost of 4.2 billion dollars. Why the difference?

Besides the rise of construction costs there was the political cost which led to many public hearings and opposition by a group known as Del Aware. This group consisted of many 'GREENIES' that were funded by the old money Potemkin family of Bucks County, PA. This group really didn't have a clue concerning demographic growth and utility demands; that would have required responsibility. They chose the trendy anti-nuke platform and helped to double the initial costs.
Chino69

chino69
06-17-2008, 07:15 PM
We would, as I am sure any fair minded individual would agree that American ingenuity if left unrestricted could accomplish much, much more then the left care to admit.
vinny

Vinny,
Again, we are in agreement. American ingenuity put a man on the moon in 1969, beating the Russians. The reasons we were able to do this was because of a vision and goal established by John F. Kennedy, team work and commitment. I know damned well that if we had established an energy policy after the First Arab Oil Embargo of the 70's we would be energy independent.
Chino69

vinny
06-17-2008, 07:16 PM
Chino,
An encyclopedia of knowledge you are! Thanks for sharing it.
vinny

Old Timer
06-17-2008, 08:57 PM
So what is the date? When is Iran going to flood the world with cheep oil. :confused:

I am also thinking that the US purchases oil from other countries now! So why have the arabs not accused us of breaking the deal already and backed out of the deal themselves. I'm so mad I cant even type. :mad:

I tell you what, who do you believe?:mad:

OT

Bill Wynne
06-17-2008, 09:21 PM
Chino
The point I was trying to make was "If not for the screaming meme GREENIES"
we would have a diversity of power and fuel sources. We would, as I am sure any fair minded individual would agree that American ingenuity if left unrestricted could accomplish much, much more then the left care to admit. I am very convinced that the "Environmentalists" own a big part of our dependence on foreign oil. They, GREENIES or the Gores of the country place restrictions on American resolve!
vinny

I have heard that one of the biggest reasons that we have stopped making nuclear reactors is due to one movie, The China Syndrome. A 1979 thriller film which tells the story of a reporter and cameraman who discover safety coverups at a nuclear power plant. This movie stared none other than Jane Fonda as the reporter.

The China Syndrome is when all safty measures fail and the core melts it's way through the earth possibly to China. It was meant to scare the public and it did.

Concho Bill

Old Timer
06-17-2008, 09:32 PM
Ok Here is what I think is going on.

The Arabs have known for years that the oil under there buts is running out. So they say OK we only have 10 years of oil/income. Lets charge $150 per brl instead of $50, so now we have three times the income we would have had.
I back this up by how much they are spending to make there country a tourist attraction. Tourists income is going to take the place of oil income when they run out of oil.

Where is my darn Zanex !:p

OT

vinny
06-17-2008, 10:40 PM
I have heard that one of the biggest reasons that we have stopped making nuclear reactors is due to one movie, The China Syndrome. A 1979 thriller film which tells the story of a reporter and cameraman who discover safety coverups at a nuclear power plant. This movie stared none other than Jane Fonda as the reporter.

The China Syndrome is when all safty measures fail and the core melts it's way through the earth possibly to China. It was meant to scare the public and it did.

Concho Bill

You have to be skeptical of any movie that has Jane Fonda in it. I was 19 at the time that movie came out, full of piss and vinegar. I didn't believe it then and I still don't. Yea accidents happen but lets question the fear tactics or brainwashing effect the media has on the sheep of the country. Hell, their going to do everything they can to sell us Obama as the next president. God help us!!!!!!!!!!
vinny

LHSmith
06-17-2008, 11:15 PM
I have heard that one of the biggest reasons that we have stopped making nuclear reactors is due to one movie, The China Syndrome. A 1979 thriller film which tells the story of a reporter and cameraman who discover safety coverups at a nuclear power plant. This movie stared none other than Jane Fonda as the reporter.

The China Syndrome is when all safty measures fail and the core melts it's way through the earth possibly to China. It was meant to scare the public and it did.

Concho Bill



.............every fricken part is over-designed to the nth degree -rendering the failure rate of any given part as infinitesimal (if used as originally spec'd).

During the 70's & 80's I worked for a company that provided a key component to nuclear power plants, and my job was to process orders for spare parts for our systems...............the amount of documentation with material certification is extraordinary...........even down to the smallest bolt and nut.

As an aside, I was working for this company when the Three Mile Island incident occurred 40 miles away......... it was '79........I don't recall any of us that worried.............must have been before the movie came out:)

I did a search and found that a 20 year follow-up study showed no significant rise in cancer deaths as a result of the TMI incident.

Mr. D
06-18-2008, 02:20 AM
Maybe we need to list all the movies that have been made that are not based on hard science and burn them in the public square like many have done to books! They could be liberal plots!!

The China Syndrome was a movie! For those still shaken up, The Andromeda Strain recently on TV was also a movie and Jane Fonda wasn't even in it!! Oh my golly, "The Body Snatchers: :eek: :eek: :eek:

vicvanb
06-18-2008, 02:50 AM
I don't know about most of you, but my Tahoe won't run on caribou poop or the democrats empty promises {even though I think they both have about the same octane rating}

And the Alaska natives that depend on North Slope caribou can't eat the gasoline that runs your Tahoe--or the Republicans' empty promises. Oh well, they are just a bunch of dumb natives--we might just as well drill in ANWR and starve them out.

Mr. D
06-18-2008, 03:05 AM
And the Alaska natives that depend on North Slope caribou can't eat the gasoline that runs your Tahoe--or the Republicans' empty promises. Oh well, they are just a bunch of dumb natives--we might just as well drill in ANWR and starve them out.

You liberals get it straight! We are not drilling for oil for the U.S. in ANWR!! It will be shipped directly overseas for the international oil companies! We are Gas "Station Building" and spreading democracy for the international oil companies. Those Caribou have been proven by White House Intelligence and Judith Miller of the N.Y. Times to be insurgents unleaded by Al Qaeda!

You either support drilling in ANWR, or you don't support our troops!

Somebody tell the guys this is a joke! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 08:14 AM
Let the people of Alaska vote on it.........I thought you guys were a believer in every vote should count!! If the drilling does take place the natives can get a job with the oil companies{as most Alaskans have} and then they can go to the store and buy their meat!! Besides there is no real evidence that the caribou herd has been hurt by the drilling...for every piece of evidence you show me it has I can show you evidence that it hasn't!! "Rock The Vote" as you lib's say!!!

Looks like the majority of Americans are on-board with the drilling....your pretty much fighting a mute point!!

Fox News poll says 67% for 18% against 15% are still wating for Obama to say something Jimmy Carter didn't!!

Chuck Bogardus
06-18-2008, 01:00 PM
How many square miles is ANWR?

How many square miles is going to be drilled?

Oh, and I've seen two sets of pictures... Ones shows lushly wooded mountains, etc., etc., and the other shows something that looks like northern Illinois in January. I wonder which one's true?

There are a lot of wells pumping in southern Illinois - I'm guessing that they take up less than 1/10 of a percent of the farms they are sited upon.

LHSmith
06-18-2008, 01:07 PM
................I recall the TOTAL being less than several football fields at the drilling site(s)......obviously not including the pipeline.

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 01:17 PM
All President Bush has asked is that oil exploration take place on 2,000 acres within ANWR - itself 19.5 million acres in size. That's a tract about the size of a big-city airport in an area the size of South Carolina with a population of fewer than 2,000.


He's not asking that oil companies be allowed to foul the land. Most Alaskans realize this, which is why one recent poll shows that 78 percent of them approve of the president's plan. They've watched the huge north slope oil field at Prudhoe Bay in production for 27 years now, and they've seen the environment thrive. They've seen the Porcupine Caribou herds -- which many environmentalists predicted would be wiped out once the oil companies arrived -- increase fivefold in number in those 27 years. Alaskan pollster David Dittman has suggested that more oil seeps out of cars each day in the average Wal-Mart parking lot than has been spilled in Alaska in more than a quarter-century.

Yote
06-18-2008, 01:26 PM
ANWR is 19 million acres. 17.5 million acres have been permanently closed to development since it is a wildlife refuge.

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/where.htm

eww1350
06-18-2008, 03:37 PM
Which president signed into law the BAN on off shore drilling..I'll give you a hint George H.W. Bush....in 1990...:confused:
Untill we find alternative energy..we need to drill more here in the USA and refine more here in the USA...and use the NASA budget and foreign aid to develope alternative energy...then we can send another probe to Mars to scoop soil and run our little radio controlled rovers around a desolate BS planet...:mad:

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 05:37 PM
There's a lot of dirty laundry on this one.....for example!!

ANWR : If Bill Clinton had signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption. Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.

If the evil republicans passed it why are the democrats so hesitant to throw it out??? Answer....It's an election year, and the democrats want to make things as bad as they can be so Obama will get elected!!
The trump card is with the conservative talk shows and Fox News they can't pull the wool over our eyes as much as they use too.

Read the history on this...... Bush 2 tried to pass this before and the congress shot it down. Join Drill Here And Drill Now and show them how you feel!!

Big Al
06-18-2008, 07:58 PM
Glenn Beck If you want the truth on this oil issue listen to the Glenn Beck Show. He seems to be the only one on cable as pissed as most of the rest of us.

vicvanb
06-18-2008, 08:32 PM
Alaskan pollster David Dittman has suggested that more oil seeps out of cars each day in the average Wal-Mart parking lot than has been spilled in Alaska in more than a quarter-century.

If memory serves, the Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989 (in Alaskan waters). If those cars in the Wal-Mart lots had seeped this much oil, the oil in the parking lots would be half way up the doors!

C'mon Phil, get it straight!

vicvanb
06-18-2008, 08:38 PM
They've seen the Porcupine Caribou herds -- which many environmentalists predicted would be wiped out once the oil companies arrived -- increase fivefold in number in those 27 years.

Phil, your false "facts" are getting really annoying!

There has been no oil development in the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. None. That herd does not range as far west as Prudhoe Bay.

The battle over ANWR is, in part, to protect the herd from future development.

So...your claim that that herd increased 5-fold is.......well, B.S.

vicvanb
06-18-2008, 08:47 PM
He's not asking that oil companies be allowed to foul the land.

Well, DUH.....The fact is that they have a proven record of "fouling the land."
And fouling the water.

Ask the Prince William Sound fisherman about fouling things with oil from the Exxon Valdez spill. To add insult to injury, they are STILL waiting for Exxon to make them whole--after 19 years of legal stalling. Some of them could not wait...and died.

Oil development in the arctic is a high risk venture. Drilling in the Arctic Ocean is a guaranteed disaster.

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 09:04 PM
Divid Dittman was talking about spills by drilling...not spills by a drunk captain!! It also appears you don't know what your talking about concerning the caribou.

Here's what big Al posted.....he lives there....he knows.....you just got a Greenie" report from one of your liberal buddies!!

We have dumb a$$ greenies just like everywhere else. Just not as many. If I were to guess, I'd say the majority of the people are in favor. I see more of the "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW" bumper stickers every day on the roads. (maybe as high as 80 to 90%)

The argument about the caribou being affected by oil drilling is a joke. Dis proven by 40 years of the Alaskan pipe line and the drilling on the north slope.

Our state government is in favor of drilling.

Let the people of Alaska vote...isn't that what you lib's are all about...every vote must count right??? ROCK THE VOTE!!

Drill Here, Drill Now!!!

Get you stories straight....don't listen to just one lib that doesn't know what he's talking about!!

vicvanb
06-18-2008, 09:25 PM
It also appears you don't know what your talking about concerning the caribou....


Sorry, Phil, what I posted about caribou is factual. If you think the Porcupine Caribou Herd was impacted by oil development, or increased 5-fold, you are getting your information from La La land!

Big Al
06-18-2008, 09:26 PM
If memory serves, the Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989 (in Alaskan waters). If those cars in the Wal-Mart lots had seeped this much oil, the oil in the parking lots would be half way up the doors!

C'mon Phil, get it straight!

Parking lot and road remoal of snow has the requirement to not be dump except in areas where there is a no chance of getting into the water system (read as streams and lakes).

This is due to the high oil content.:D

Phil Deese
06-18-2008, 09:36 PM
Join Drill Here, Drill Now...Newt needs your support.....we're now up to 930,000 votes........don't listen to all those libs......they'll confuse you!!
Keep my Tahoe running!! You don't eat caribou anyway!!

ROCK THE VOTE!!!

chino69
06-19-2008, 10:39 AM
I have heard that one of the biggest reasons that we have stopped making nuclear reactors is due to one movie, The China Syndrome. A 1979 thriller film which tells the story of a reporter and cameraman who discover safety coverups at a nuclear power plant. This movie stared none other than Jane Fonda as the reporter.

The China Syndrome is when all safty measures fail and the core melts it's way through the earth possibly to China. It was meant to scare the public and it did.

Concho Bill

Bill,
The Three Mile Island Accident happened around the same time The China Syndrome came out. TMI galvanized the nuclear industry, implementing major changes in operation, training, design, testing, maintenance, emergency preparedness, etc. It was the best thing that could have happened to the nuclear power industry because these changes were implemented in every operating reactor in the U.S., being mandated by law. Without going into all the technical detail, here's an interesting fact. Had the TMI control room operators allowed the emergency safety systems auto initiate, as designed, there would have been no accident. The low reactor water level would have tripped several set-points which would have auto started emergency core cooling pumps to keep the core covered with water.

I've seen films of camera probes into the damaged reactor core where the fuel bundles melted. In spite of this major accident, there was little or no release to the environment because the containment structure performed it's function.

As one who has worked in the nuclear industry for approx. 30 years I can tell you that The China Syndrome is a joke and only a Hollywood creation. The equipment, personnell, scenario, etc. is pure Hollywood. Unfortunately, some people's view of reality is not well grounded and will believe fantasy.
Chino69

Hammer1
06-19-2008, 12:54 PM
Sometimes I wonder if the unbiased biologists without a dog in the fight are related to the unbiased Global Warming folks who want $45 trillion to solve global warming.

It's June and we're still wearing jackets here in Idaho. Some guests this morning from San Francisco were asking to borrow something heavier.


.

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 01:11 PM
It's June and we're still wearing jackets here in Idaho. Some guests this morning from San Francisco were asking to borrow something heavier.
.

Man, it sure was HOT on the East Coast about 10 days ago! Whew! Some guests from the Midwest would not leave the air conditioned house!!

What do these things mean? Nadda!

The only thing that counts are long term average temps and they clearly show a warming trend in recent years.

cntryboy1289
06-19-2008, 01:15 PM
Vic, how do they compare to the warming trends the earth has had over the centuries? Do a comaparison and put it up here so we can actually see just what the difference is if you will.

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 01:15 PM
You don't eat caribou anyway!!


Everytime you post there are false claims!

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 01:21 PM
Vic, how do they compare to the warming trends the earth has had over the centuries? Do a comaparison and put it up here so we can actually see just what the difference is if you will.

Of course there have been warming (and cooling) trends in the past. These have produced huge swings in climate. There is no debate about this.

The only thing that is important now is that there is a warming trend and it's caused by greenhouse gases. The debate is over among reputable climate scientists. I stress reputable. Yes, there are those who try to debunk it--just like the tobacco industry produced "scientists" who claimed smoking was not harmful.

chino69
06-19-2008, 01:26 PM
Yes, there are those who try to debunk it--just like the tobacco industry produced "scientists" who claimed smoking was not harmful.

This quote brings to mind the cigarette commercials of the late 50's. Remember the one where the actor was dressed like a doctor and was selling Kools, as if they had a medicinal value?
Chino69

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 01:33 PM
This quote brings to mind the cigarette commercials of the late 50's. Remember the one where the actor was dressed like a doctor and was selling Kools, as if they had a medicinal value?
Chino69

Yes, I do remember it.

Back then TV was chock full of cigarette commercials. If you wanted to be part of the "in crowd" you just had to smoke. Somehow I was not convinced and never got hooked even though my father was a chain smoker for 50 years! I didn't have to smoke--there was enough second hand smoke in the house for everyone!

Rock63
06-19-2008, 01:33 PM
Of course there have been warming (and cooling) trends in the past. These have produced huge swings in climate. There is no debate about this.

The only thing that is important now is that there is a warming trend and it's caused by greenhouse gases. The debate is over among reputable climate scientists. I stress reputable. Yes, there are those who try to debunk it--just like the tobacco industry produced "scientists" who claimed smoking was not harmful.

Warming or cooling can be scientifically measured.
When you add "AND it's caused by" then you have departed from science and moved into opinion, conjecture, or loony land.

Try these links please.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
http://icecap.us/


http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Phil Deese
06-19-2008, 04:02 PM
67% want to drill................that's all I care about!! Maybe you and Al Gore need to start a traveling team on the environment and let the rest of us save the countries economy before it's too late. If you do like caribou start raising them in your back yard and let the rest of us do what's right for the majority of Americans!! I'm not going to wait until we're all riding bicycles to what jobs are left!! I have heard both sides of the global warming argument and your side doesn't make much sense to me!! Show me all of the evidence from your side and I can counter it from our side, that still doesn't put gasoline in my tank or the majority of Americans that agree with me. If you think your going to get the majority of the people on this forum to accept your argument your wasting your time. We're tired of paying the "Pelosi Premium" for these 2 years of "Do Nothing" democrats.
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!! before it's too late!!
All of the arguments you make aren't really accepted by most logical thinking people!! MOVE ON!!

chino69
06-19-2008, 04:18 PM
Yes, I do remember it.

Back then TV was chock full of cigarette commercials. If you wanted to be part of the "in crowd" you just had to smoke. Somehow I was not convinced and never got hooked even though my father was a chain smoker for 50 years! I didn't have to smoke--there was enough second hand smoke in the house for everyone!

I remember my parents sitting in front of the television watching Gunsmoke, Have Gun Will Travel, The Rebel, Wagontrain, and the living room being filled with smoke. Dude, we're showing our age!
Chino69

Paul Fielder
06-19-2008, 04:20 PM
Sometimes I wonder if the unbiased biologists without a dog in the fight are related to the unbiased Global Warming folks who want $45 trillion to solve global warming.

It's June and we're still wearing jackets here in Idaho. Some guests this morning from San Francisco were asking to borrow something heavier.


.

Share some it stingy!! Just kidding of couse but we're melting.

It's 103 right now almost 3:30 and I have an all starr gameat 5:15!!

sigh.....it's only gonna get hotter too.


Global warming is a bunch of jibber-jabber......haven't been keeping track long enough to know for certain. It's all speculation.

pf

Mr. D
06-19-2008, 04:27 PM
Phil,

You are not discussing the issue again. Just taking shots at everything you don't like.

Although there are many that don't believe Global Warming exists, there are many brilliant scientist that do. If those scientists are wrong and we try to reduce Carbon Emissions we will wind up with cleaner energy even if Global Warming is a myth. On the other had if we ignore the issue as a myth we maybe heading for disaster if it turns out to be true.

Rock63
06-19-2008, 04:40 PM
Although there are many that don't believe Global Warming exists

This is accurate but incomplete.

More accurate would be: There are many who do not believe that Man is the direct cause of global warming.


here are many brilliant scientist that do.

Brilliant? What scientist lacks that quality? You are mincing words without meaning in favor of one side.

More accurate would be: Scientists are found on both sides of this debate.


If those scientists are wrong and we try to reduce Carbon Emissions we will wind up with cleaner energy even if Global Warming is a myth.

If you want to work towards cleaner energy, then please do so. Do not wrap the discussion in the debateable condition of global warming.

Cleaner energy at what cost? Is it worth spending 25% of US gross domestic product on this pursuit? What level of inflation would be acceptable if you were able to get cleaner energy? What level of unemployment?

The air quality samples being pulled from California National Parks are finding pollution of the type not generated in California. This is because much of the California air quality problem is being provided by our good friends in China where the air is brown all day.

So take all the us cars off the road, and the brown air still comes here from China. How will your murcury filled CFL solve this problem and save the planet from destruction in your lifetime?




On the other had if we ignore the issue as a myth we maybe heading for disaster if it turns out to be true.

Disaster? What disaster? When will it happen? Most of the air and water pollution that is taking place on the globe today is in China, India, and Africa. Go find out where the battery raw materials for your Prius are being mined and you will find pollution that is beyond belief.

Yes, the Prius is responsible for massive levels of devistation, yet somehow it is a "Green" "Environmentally Sensitive" vehicle......

Phil Deese
06-19-2008, 04:44 PM
There are also many BRILLIANT scientist that feel it's not true!! The majority says drill.....so what are waiting for.....or who is preventing us from drilling??
Could it be a group of people with "D" by their names?? You be the judge!!

I think at this point most Americans could care less about global warming....if they did the ones that approve of drilling wouldn't be in the majority!!

Drill Here, Drill Now!!

ROCK63......looks like you figured it out!! "D" sounds like Oberman on MSNBC!!

Rock63
06-19-2008, 04:50 PM
I believe that this planet has seen wide swings in surface temperature over the ages.

I believe that those historic swings are part of a cycle.

I believe that our miniscule historical perspective has allowed us to decide that the temperature of a certain era is the "ideal" or "normal" temperature, when in fact that era was simply a passing thru point between extremes.

Where I live there is a cave that yielded a significant collection of fossils.
Cave Bear (from heavy forest)
Sloth (from rain forest)
Mammoth (from ice age)
Camel (from arid times)

This cave is formed in a mountain of limestone (which forms as a sea floor deposit) containing fossil fish and invertibrates. The invertibrates are those normally found in a shallow warm water ocean.

I have also personally dug up petrified dawn redwood in Nevada, from when that region was on the oceans edge.

So I live:
1. Next to a volcanoe (spewing sulpher and carbon dioxide)
2. where it was desert
3. where it was forest
4. where it was glacier covered
5. where it was an ocean
6. where it is now over 500 feet above sea level

Now I ask, which of those conditions/tempertures is the "right one" that should be sought after and preserved at all costs?

Additionally I would ask; what makes anyone think that man is so significant that he has the capability to change the world?

Don't forget that the largest quantity greenhouse gas in our aptmosphere is none other than water vapor!

In short, if you want to stop the warming, you need to stop exhaling all that co2 and water vapor. The greenies themselves can solve their perceived problem by removing themselves from the equation.

Rock63
06-19-2008, 04:54 PM
If anyone here is willing to have a good read with an open mind, the following has some very interesting perspectives:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08

Caution,this is a publication from a US college and colleges are considered to be bastions of liberalism, so this publication may make you uncomfortable. Are you man enough to read it anyway?

Phil Deese
06-19-2008, 05:30 PM
Great read....but the libs will never buy it!! Too much money to be made for the "Greenies"!! Glad you joined in, vinvanb needs some education on global warming.....I think that caribou is leaving a bad taste in his mouth.

beemanbeme
06-19-2008, 06:20 PM
Somebody proposed that we suspend our trapsing around in space and playing sandpile on other worlds and stop some of our more exotic pet projects and spend that money here to solve our transportation needs. I think that's a great idea and what about the scientist? Think of all the brain power that would unleash.
All of those brilliant scientist, instead of trying to figure out how to patch a hole in the ozone that they can't say for sure hasn't been there right along, could be working on how to change sand into propulsion; the moon rover boys could be figuring out how to make a car that would seat 6 go 60 mph on a single energizer bunny "D" battery. Think of all the money that would be saved by all the prototype mock ups that wouldn't have to be built for warming projections. How to breed a caribo that would eat oil spills. It boggles the mind.
I'm sure that the Alaskans feel so strongly about this --for the good of America as a whole, of course-- that they will refuse any increase in their annuity checks. ;)

Hammer1
06-19-2008, 07:22 PM
The only thing that counts are long term average temps and they clearly show a warming trend in recent years.





Are you sure ?

.

Hammer1
06-19-2008, 07:43 PM
You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.

According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."

Hammer1
06-19-2008, 08:12 PM
If the alleged Global Warming trend reverses...

Will the Global Warming folks then prescribe their obvious remedy for global cooling which would be to pump more carbon into the air to warm things up ?

And will they then encourage me to drive my Big Block V8s and V10s ?

.

Rock63
06-19-2008, 08:49 PM
Some of us are old enough to remember the cry of global cooling and the coming of an ice age. That time the science and the greenies wanted change too. Were they wrong?

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 08:50 PM
When you add "AND it's caused by" then you have departed from science and moved into opinion, conjecture, or loony land.


Science involves searching for causes all the time. Do you really believe medical science doesn't look for cause and effect relationships??

Loony indeed!

Phil Deese
06-19-2008, 08:54 PM
Don't waste your time with him.......................his head is as hard as a fist-full of jawbreakers!!

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 09:00 PM
Phil,
You are not discussing the issue again. Just taking shots at everything you don't like.


It goes WAY beyond that. It's putting forth false "facts" in nearly every post, bullying, labeling everything contrary as liberal (or as he spells it "liberial"), and lots of rudeness.

Sad but true.

vicvanb
06-19-2008, 09:01 PM
Don't waste your time with him.......................his head is as hard as a fist-full of jawbreakers!!

I forgot...add name calling

Phil Deese
06-19-2008, 09:09 PM
Drill Here, And Drill Now!!!:D:D Go to a site where most agree with you.......if that exist!!

cntryboy1289
06-19-2008, 09:39 PM
Vic, I have not called you anything but when asked a question by me, you gave an opinion and was called on it. I do believe you never gave me what I asked for but yet again gave off what you thought was right.

How do you feel about the global warming tax that they are trying pass? If it might be baseless is it still a good tax. Note, Inever even asked you if you think Congress will spend it wisely or not.

cntryboy1289
06-19-2008, 10:40 PM
Here's the answer to our prayers:::::::

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=1373car2

LHSmith
06-19-2008, 11:05 PM
The only thing that is important now is that there is a warming trend and it's caused by greenhouse gases. The debate is over among reputable climate scientists.



...........a tad arrogant? And your credentials that allow you to determine which scientists are reputable?

You guy's are advocating "change" to the status quo...............therefore it's your responsibility to debunk the scientists who disagree with your contentions about man-made warming trends..............If it truly is THAT urgent, why doesn't ALGORE practice what he preaches.......he still travels by private jet, etc...................and he's looking to make BIG $$$$ from his crusade.



I see this "no debate" thingy is infectious amongst the liberals.............even Obama is shying away from any debating.

LHSmith
06-19-2008, 11:24 PM
.....................you guy's are forgetting about that big oil conspiracy from 2 or 3 decades ago, where someone developed a real cheap alternative to gas, but one of the oil companies either bought the formula, or killed him, or bought it AND killed him.............so they wouldn't be stuck with all that useless oil.

But, there may be a glitch.................it may not pass the ALGORE clean and green test.:)..............................back to worrying!

Hammer1
06-19-2008, 11:48 PM
The only thing that counts are long term average temps and they clearly show a warming trend in recent years.






Go to the website for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They have temperature records going back to 1895.

Go to their monthly averages for all reporting stations in the Lower 48. That's averaging a lot of data. Lots of data.

Use the data from 1900 to 1999 (100 years) to determine monthly averages. That old Central Limit Theorem is working overtime with this much data and averaging.

Then take the recent data since January 2000 until now (May 2008). Subtract the 100 year monthly averages from the recent data (since January 2000).

Plot those 101 monthly variances on a simple trend graph. A fourth grader can do it. Again, each monthly variance is an average of lots and lots of reporting stations in the Lower 48. As W. Edwards Deming said, "Look at the data."

If you care to, do a little regression and calculate the R-square. Something that might be considered data analysis and not emotional or political.

The R-square is 0 (zero) to four decimal places. No trend. Na-da. And what slope there is -- is cooler.

Most scientific conclusions from physical sciences would expect R-squares in the 90+ range to get serious consideration in a scientific journal.

But Global Warming can declare itself to be beyond debate of reputable scientists with an R-square of zero.

Guess the Global Warming folks will credit Bush with putting a stop to rising temperatures. Guess they'll erect a statue to him.



.

cntryboy1289
06-20-2008, 12:05 AM
OMG........ you didn't just say that did you.......ROTFL

They have never had proof, they only spout out loudly that the sky is falling!

vicvanb
06-20-2008, 02:04 PM
Vic, I have not called you anything...

No you didn't and I did not quote you when I mentioned name calling. It was another person.

cntryboy1289
06-21-2008, 04:09 AM
I appreciate that Vic, but you still haven't done what I asked nor answered my question. I asked you to comapare the trends of the past with todays trend. That was done for us though by someone else and it always shows that there is not global warming going on but weather trends that have always occurred throughout the past and are still occurring.

Careful what bandwagon you hitch your team up to because scientists that are after grant money can come up with some mighty strange facts and figures when they are applying for monies. When money is involved, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will try to grab the most by whatever means necessary.

Chuck Bogardus
06-21-2008, 05:38 AM
Global warming is "popular" right now... And you can bet that every starving post-doc, and as many grad student minions as he/she can get, are jumping into studying "climate change" before the money pool gets drained.

Big Al
06-21-2008, 12:03 PM
Go to the website for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They have temperature records going back to 1895.

Go to their monthly averages for all reporting stations in the Lower 48. That's averaging a lot of data. Lots of data.

Use the data from 1900 to 1999 (100 years) to determine monthly averages. That old Central Limit Theorem is working overtime with this much data and averaging.

Then take the recent data since January 2000 until now (May 2008). Subtract the 100 year monthly averages from the recent data (since January 2000).

Plot those 101 monthly variances on a simple trend graph. A fourth grader can do it. Again, each monthly variance is an average of lots and lots of reporting stations in the Lower 48. As W. Edwards Deming said, "Look at the data."

If you care to, do a little regression and calculate the R-square. Something that might be considered data analysis and not emotional or political.

The R-square is 0 (zero) to four decimal places. No trend. Na-da. And what slope there is -- is cooler.

Most scientific conclusions from physical sciences would expect R-squares in the 90+ range to get serious consideration in a scientific journal.

But Global Warming can declare itself to be beyond debate of reputable scientists with an R-square of zero.

Guess the Global Warming folks will credit Bush with putting a stop to rising temperatures. Guess they'll erect a statue to him.



.

There is an independent group that went to every NOAA reporting station in the country to check for compliance. To insure the way the data was collected was in the standards set by NOAA. They found a large number of the weather station failed. They took pictures as proof. The worst station was on the UofA campus in Tucson, Arizona. The station was next to an asphalt parking lot. This was just one of many. Some stations were under the discharge of air conditioning units.

This makes me wonder, can you trust any of their data?

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 12:41 PM
This makes me wonder, can you trust any of their data?





Your feelings are probably on solid ground, Big Al.

Think you're right about all the data being used by government employees to enhance their power and control.

Or data collected by anyone whose livelihood is enhanced by creating scare, crisis, or government action or control, e.g., college professors and grad students or any other folks with government or special interests grants from folks like Al Gore, Green Peace, or the Sierra Club.

Feel the same way about any United Nations data.

Think you are right to be suspect of these folks, Big Al.












.

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 01:19 PM
In their August 5, 2004, issue...

The Wall Street Journal reported on a John Hopkins study of medical doctor examinations.

They reveiwed 492 X-rays which had been used in court cases. When the doctors were told what the results needed to show, 96% of the X-rays were found to show what the doctors were told to find.

When the same X-rays were submitted to radiologists without reference to the "right answer", less than 5% were found to have the ailment that those same X-rays had previously been reported to show and sworn to in court.

Have no problem with doctors. Have family members who are doctors and am currently putting another through medical school.

Guess even the most honorable need to be concerned about the popular or right answer leading them astray.

Global Warming is the most popular religion on the planet right now.

.


.

Chuck Bogardus
06-21-2008, 02:24 PM
Just follow the money. If you say the sky is falling, you get more to study it.

vicvanb
06-21-2008, 02:41 PM
I asked you to comapare the trends of the past with todays trend. That was done for us though by someone else and it always shows that there is not global warming going on but weather trends that have always occurred throughout the past and are still occurring.


I don't know what data you are referring to but every analysis available to date by reputable climate scientists shows a warming trend over the past several decades.

In all areas of science there are uncertainties. In climate science there is no uncertainty that there has been a warming trend in recent years.

There is minimal uncertainty about the cause of the trend. Very few reputable climate scientists now dispute the cause as increased greenhouse gases produced by human activity.

There is virtually no uncertainty that as (not if) the trend continues, there will be dire consequences in the form of increased sea levels, weather extremes, including droughts that will reduce food production, and more severe storms like Katrina with flooding and property damage.

Anyone is free to disbelieve what the scientists say, but those of us in the field of science were trained to test hypotheses by gathering data and analyzing it to determine how nature behaves. If you don't want to accept the science as accurate, that is your choice.

You too should he careful about hitching your wagon. Yesterday on talk radio I heard a "scientist" debunking global warming. Turns out he had a PhD in physical chemistry. When I'm ill I go to a medical doctor, not a plumber. There are a lot of "plumbers" these days spouting off about global warming. Trust what they say at your own peril.

Phil Deese
06-21-2008, 02:55 PM
Oil Exports
Until 1995, Alaska North Slope crude could not be legally exported, and the export ban contributed to a West Coast oil glut, reducing the price received by North Slope producers. Oil is exported from other oil-producing states with no prohibitions, however. Since mid-2000, no oil has been exported to foreign countries from Alaska.

Myths of ANWR
I n 1980, the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was specially designated by Congress for further study of its oil and gas potential. Much of the rest of ANWR’s 19 million acres is already designated as Wilderness.

Groups seeking to stop oil exploration in Alaska want to designate the Coastal Plain as Wilderness (half of ANWR is for-mally designated Wilderness now), and present several misleading arguments:

Here are the “myths” being told about ANWR, and the truth:
*Myth: All of Alaska’s Arctic coast is open to oil and gas development.

Reality: With the exception of the area between the Colville and Canning Rivers (which is owned by the state of Alaska) none of the more than 1000 miles of Arctic Alaska coastline is open to oil and gas leasing, not one mile of it.

*Myth: The state of Alaska will get 90 percent of any royalties from oil production in ANWR’s Coastal Plain.

Reality: The federal government won litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States which allows congress to determine the share of revenues with the State of Alaska. Congress wants 50/50.

*Myth: Alaska’s indigenous people are against oil exploration in the Coastal Plain.

Reality: Alaska’s Inupiat Eskimo people, who live on the North Slope (one village, Kaktovik, is the only community within ANWR) strongly support onshore oil and gas exploration in the Coastal Plain, and elsewhere on the North Slope. Some of the Gwichins, who live 150 miles south of the Coastal Plain, are opposed to development. The Gwichins leased their own lands for oil exploration, but no oil was found. Now they oppose the Inupiats having the same rights to explore.

Phil Deese
06-21-2008, 02:59 PM
The caribou real story!!

*Myth: Development of the Coastal Plain will destroy the caribou.

Reality: The same claim was made about the trans-Alaska pipeline more than 2 decades ago, but today North Slope caribou herds along the pipeline and near the North Slope oil fields are thriving. :eek::eek::eek:

GET IT STRAIGHT vinvanb!!!:D:D:D

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 03:19 PM
There are many things you need a trained scientist or engineer for.

But determining a trend is not one of them.

W. Edwards Deming taught elementary school children how to distinguish trends.

Just go to the source data which is publicly available (NOAA).

Anyone can get it.

Using either annual averages, or monthly data if you take the effort to deseasonalize it, and plot it. Anyone who has been in one day of SPC training knows how to do a nonparametric test for a trend.



.

vinny
06-21-2008, 04:17 PM
The caribou real story!!

*Myth: Development of the Coastal Plain will destroy the caribou.

Reality: The same claim was made about the trans-Alaska pipeline more than 2 decades ago, but today North Slope caribou herds along the pipeline and near the North Slope oil fields are thriving. :eek::eek::eek:

GET IT STRAIGHT vinvanb!!!:D:D:D

Phil
Calling vicvanb, vinvanb is a bit insulting to me.
Love ya posts!
vinny

Phil Deese
06-21-2008, 04:38 PM
Thanks!! It takes all of us to keep the truth out there!!! I talked to my cousin, who is a stockbroker and handles my retirement funds.....he said these Obama people are crazy and will end up destroying our economy if they get elected...............he has been right for many years!!!

vinny
06-21-2008, 04:50 PM
Thanks!! It takes all of us to keep the truth out there!!! I talked to my cousin, who is a stockbroker and handles my retirement funds.....he said these Obama people are crazy and will end up destroying our economy if they get elected...............he has been right for many years!!!

Phil
The economy isn't all they'll destroy!

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 05:48 PM
Is there a trend ?


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/Hammer100/Isthereatrend.jpg

.

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 06:16 PM
Is there a trend now ?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/Hammer100/Isthereatrendnow.jpg

vinny
06-21-2008, 06:19 PM
Is there a trend ?


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/Hammer100/Isthereatrend.jpg

.

Is that trend line an indicator in the reduction of liberal intelligence over the last 25 years :D
vinny

cntryboy1289
06-21-2008, 06:32 PM
Vic, while I really do appreciate what you believe, it just isn't so because some scientist say it is. One thing about science, it always changes and yet always still stays relatively the same at the same time.

Again, if you do what I asked and what Hammer mentioned, you might just find something else than what you have been led to believe to be the case.

Phil Deese
06-21-2008, 06:41 PM
he throws the word "Reputable" out there, when we've already proven his buddy in Alaska doesn't know what he's talking about!!
vinvanb is probably someone involved in the vast left wing conspiracy!!

RayfromTX
06-21-2008, 07:17 PM
An interesting link about oil price speculation being blamed for the big run up in oil prices. I'm dropping it here because the 4$ gas thread died and maybe it will get us off the conservative/liberal argument about global climate change.

It is a good read and makes sense to me.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/scapegoating_the_speculators_116339.htm

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 07:47 PM
[S]he throws the word "Reputable" out there





Almost as much as Mattie Ross threw out "Lawyer Daggett" at Rooster Cogburn in True Grit.

.

Hammer1
06-21-2008, 08:20 PM
Wonder if this is a trend ?


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/Hammer100/Anothertrend.jpg

.

cntryboy1289
06-21-2008, 11:19 PM
I only wish he would name his sources. Reputable sources to whom, may not be very reputable to anyone else, but at least if you are going to throw them out there on every post, name them so we can all go back and check them out for validity.

Calling someone's proof junk science is what they have always done to discredit anyone that tries to say something else other than the modern version of the sky is falling.

Vic, I am not trying to give you a hard time. You keep giving tidbits of info and never seem to be able to prove any of it. Just do the comaparison like I asked and come back here with the numbers so we can all judge for ourselves please.

vicvanb
06-22-2008, 12:50 AM
Oil Exports
Until 1995, Alaska North Slope crude could not be legally exported, and the export ban contributed to a West Coast oil glut, reducing the price received by North Slope producers. Oil is exported from other oil-producing states with no prohibitions, however. Since mid-2000, no oil has been exported to foreign countries.

North Slope oil has NEVER been exported, not between 1995 and 2000 or at any other time. ALL of it has gone to refineries on the US West Coast since oil started flowing in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 1977.

Another example of false "facts" posted by Phil.

vicvanb
06-22-2008, 12:59 AM
The caribou real story!!

GET IT STRAIGHT vinvanb!!!:D:D:D

I have it straight and already posted the key facts but you ignore them.

I repeat: The Prudhoe Bay vs. ANWR comparison is apples and oranges. The ANWR caribou calve on the Coastal Plain (where the drilling would occur). They have no alternative site. No caribou biologist in North America will tell you that oil development on a herd's calving ground is benefecial.

The Prudhoe Bay Caribou do not calve there, hence we cannot claim we know what will happen in ANWR based on Prudhoe.

It was you who claimed that there was oil development within the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and it increased 5-fold. Both claims are wrong.

Who needs to get it straight???

vicvanb
06-22-2008, 01:12 AM
Vic, I am not trying to give you a hard time. You keep giving tidbits of info and never seem to be able to prove any of it. Just do the comaparison like I asked and come back here with the numbers so we can all judge for ourselves please.

First, you are not clear on what analysis you are asking me to do. Global warming is just that--warming of the climate over the entire planet. I do not have access to all the data required to perform this analysis. Nor do I have the patience to wade through a huge volume of data spanning decades.

Second, when I go to a medical doctor for treatment and he cites medical research that his diagnosis and treatment are based on, I do not go back to the original data and perform my own analysis. I TRUST that my doctor and those who did the research were competent.

Similarly, I trust reputable climate scientists who have almost universally agreed that global warming is occurring based on climate data over the past several decades.

Please re-read my previous post about non climate experts claiming to refute what the compent scientists have concluded.

Hammer1
06-22-2008, 01:51 AM
Second, when I go to a medical doctor for treatment and he cites medical research that his diagnosis and treatment are based on, I do not go back to the original data and perform my own analysis. I TRUST that my doctor and those who did the research were competent.




When I go to a doctor and his diagnoses is that I have a minor problem and a couple of aspirin will take care of it, then I am not likely to bother seeking a second opinion.

However, if he recommends major life-threatening surgery and removal of vital organs and replacement of their function with artificial means, I might seek a second and even a third opinion.

Given that the Global Warming worshippers are telling us they need $45 trillion to make inroads into the alleged problem, I think I will seek a second, third, and fourth opinion. And think a little personal research is in order too since it is so easy to obtain the data and plot it. Took all of thirty minutes. Not too much effort considering the $45 trillion bill that comes with the diagnoses.

It has been alleged in congressional studies that over 100,000 people die annually in this country due to medical ut-ohs. I don't want to add to that number. Might do a little more thinking about medical diagnoses in the future.

Understand that informed patients really do irritate some medical doctors. But other doctors actually like to have informed patients. The personal doctor that I use is one of the latter. He actually encourages his patients to get second opinions. And to become informed and challenging.

.

vicvanb
06-22-2008, 02:14 PM
You are absolutely right--by all means get a second opinion! And a 3rd or 4th. That is exactly what has happened in the controversy over global warming. The data have been re-analyzed by reputable climate scientists over and over--and guess what? The conclusions are all the same. Global warming has occurred over the past several decades.

But there is a big difference between getting a second opinion and trying to analyze the data yourself.

Getting a second opinion from a doctor is absolutely the best strategy. But trying to go back to reanalyze the original data from the research on which he based his diagnosis is foolish for an unqualified layman. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting.

I repeat: I trust that my doctor and the medical researchers are competent. I am not a trained medical researcher and I am unqualified to re-analyze medical research data. And besides, the original data are unavailable.

Now, if the horde of pseudo climate scientists that claim they know more than the experts would only admit their deficiencies, maybe the truth would emerge.

Chuck Bogardus
06-22-2008, 02:47 PM
The message I get from the "climate change" folks is that the U.S. needs to drop back to the standard of living of medieval Europe, while handily ignoring that China, South America, India, the Pacific Rim countries, and Eastern Europe will all be burning anything they can get their hands on...

Phil Deese
06-22-2008, 03:06 PM
Sounds like you've got the lib's figured out!! This global warming thing is a religion to most of them....they want to take God out, and they think that we as measly little human beings can control the world that He created!!

Phil Deese
06-22-2008, 03:11 PM
Get it straight.................. We're talking about using an area as large as an airport in the state of South Carolina........if there are that many caribou we probably need to kill some of them off anyway. Drill Here, Drill Now!! 67% say let's drill.................18% say no and 15% don't know were their afoot or horseback!!! Your in the minority...........as usual!!! Sounds like your so called "EXPERTS" don't know what their talking about either. Why is it that when a lib finds someone that agrees with them they are the expert?? ROCK THE VOTE!!!

vinny
06-22-2008, 03:21 PM
This "Global Warming" hysteria, its a excuse being used to gain more control over our lives. Its the beginning of totalitarianism!
Don't let them fool ya, their masters at deception and manipulation!
vinny

Hammer1
06-22-2008, 05:05 PM
And besides, the original data are unavailable.









I do not have access to all the data required to perform this analysis. Nor do I have the patience to wade through a huge volume of data spanning decades.




Wonder why you would insist that the data is unavailable when it is posted on government websites for the asking without charge and takes very little time to download even on a slow computer connection ?

Anyone competent in data analysis can determine if there is a trend in a matter of minutes. Doesn't matter if the trend is of economic inflation, human body temperature, the pH of a chemical process, or the weekly sales of a big box retailer. The laws and principles of mathematics and statistics are the same.




.

..foolish for an unqualified layman...






I might take exception to your reference to me as "an unqualified layman" to analyze data.

On what basis do you make such a statement ?

Is your knowledge of my qualifications for analyzing statistical data as sound as your qualifications to refer to others as "reputable scientists" ?


.

Hammer1
06-23-2008, 07:49 AM
Put oil firm chiefs on trial,

says leading climate change scientist·

Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists

'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis

Ed Pilkington in New York
The Guardian,
Monday June 23, 2008



James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming...

.

vinny
06-23-2008, 08:35 AM
Like I said before, "The only freedom of speech the loony left tolerates is when its in lock step and barrel with their own" otherwise they shout you down and try every means possible to silence you. Hence the reason the Democratic party is all for "The Fairness doctrine". Their masters at fooling the sheep of this country through their marketing schemes. I wonder what its going to take to wake the Wolves?
vinny

vicvanb
06-23-2008, 12:44 PM
...... We're talking about using an area as large as an airport in the state of South Carolina........

If you believe that, you are worse off than I thought.

Check the size of Prudhoe Bay, a huge industrial complex needed to pump and move the oil.

If ANWR is developed it will require far more than what you claim for feeder lines, a pump station, and all the other associated development.

The propaganda about slant drilling and leaving a small footprint is designed to get a foot in the door after which things rapidly expand.

Prudhoe Bay expanded to the Alpine Field. Point Thompson is next. Why do you think ANWR would be any different?

Chuck Bogardus
06-23-2008, 12:51 PM
Why should I care about ANWR?

(now here is where someone shows me a picture of caribou grazing in a lush wooded valley, with a waterfall in the background.... NOT!)

Face it - the place looks like north central Illinois in the dead of winter. I have as much desire to travel there as I do to travel to Midland.

And I haven't seen a giant "Prudhoe Bay" type of facility in southern Illinois... I'll see an occasional pump going, but that's about it.

vicvanb
06-23-2008, 12:55 PM
Wonder why you would insist that the data is unavailable when it is posted on government websites for the asking without charge and takes very little time to download even on a slow computer connection ?
.

Please read my my post. I said that original data from MEDICAL studies is unavailable.

vicvanb
06-23-2008, 01:00 PM
I might take exception to your reference to me as "an unqualified layman" to analyze data.

On what basis do you make such a statement ?
.

Again, the context was reanalyzing medical research data. It was NOT referring to you.

I am sure that you are a real whiz at data analysis. But are you a competent, qualified climate scientist?

Just curious.

vicvanb
06-23-2008, 01:09 PM
Get it straight....

You keep telling me to get it straight (and I have) but you get it wrong about exporting North Slope crude, oil development within the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, growth of the Porcupine herd five-fold, and on and on. When I point these things out, you just post more false "facts."

Enough is enough. This has gotten way too silly.

No more posts from me on this thread.

Have the last word, and don't forget to throw in a few more insults.

RStiefel
06-23-2008, 01:12 PM
anyway? The oil companies have not yet developed for oil extraction the 65 MILLION land and water acres they were given just outside these protected areas just for the drilling and production of oil. Has this gone unnoticed or do most not know about it?

RStiefel
06-23-2008, 01:28 PM
about the amount of acreage. It's 68 MILLION.

brendab
06-23-2008, 04:22 PM
Why aren't you guys out shooting instead of arguing about things that are only your opinions? Life is too short!

This country has had over thirty years to become independent of foreign oil. You can all argue until you are blue in the face but nothing will change.
brendab

Bill Wynne
06-23-2008, 04:40 PM
Why aren't you guys out shooting instead of arguing about things that are only your opinions? Life is too short!

I notice that this is your first post here. It one of the best and quite timely.

Thanks,

Concho Bill

Phil Deese
06-23-2008, 04:57 PM
Adopt a couple of these caribou and put them in your backyard............Then you can see them everyday and clean-up their dropping as a hobby!! Think of all the time and energy you and the majority of us would save!! Get it straight!!! The majority want to drill....you know the numbers......I still don't know about the 15%, but their probably voting democrat!!

Hammer1
06-23-2008, 07:34 PM
Yes, we would all enjoy shooting more.

Do realize that shooters are in the sights of the Global Warming and extreme environmentalists.

Hammer1
06-23-2008, 07:57 PM
But are you a competent, qualified climate scientist?





Since to be a "reputable scientist" in your eyes one has to support the Global Warming religion, I doubt I could ever meet that criteria.

.