Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.
While Pickens plan may be the long term solution. What does it do about the gas prices right now? nothing. The best solution to our current energy problems is simple.
If we drill of the gulf, drill of the coast of Florida and california. The Oil Shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. If we drill in anwr.
That would drastically drive down the price of gas, and almost completely eliminate our dependance on foreign oil.
Our U.S. Oil reserves are larger than all Mid-east oil countries combined.
Why are we not harnessing this?
Because the Liberal Enviormentalist movement wants to manufacture a shortage in order to keep our evergrowing unimportant carbon footprint from growing larger.
Im gonna say it right now.
Global warming is a lie.
unbiased research shows that it simply is not true.
Newt Gingrich and his organization known as American Solutions has more viable, logical, and practical plans to bring oil prices down and eliminate our dependance of foreign oil.
Im not against wind energy, its just not the best solution we have available.
see also
www.globalwarminglies.com
www.americansolutions.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJcnhUG-28&feature=related
If we drill of the gulf, drill of the coast of Florida and california. The Oil Shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. If we drill in anwr.
That would drastically drive down the price of gas, and almost completely eliminate our dependance on foreign oil.
Our U.S. Oil reserves are larger than all Mid-east oil countries combined.
Why are we not harnessing this?
Because the Liberal Enviormentalist movement wants to manufacture a shortage in order to keep our evergrowing unimportant carbon footprint from growing larger.
Im gonna say it right now.
Global warming is a lie.
unbiased research shows that it simply is not true.
Newt Gingrich and his organization known as American Solutions has more viable, logical, and practical plans to bring oil prices down and eliminate our dependance of foreign oil.
Im not against wind energy, its just not the best solution we have available.
see also
www.globalwarminglies.com
www.americansolutions.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJcnhUG-28&feature=related
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Brandon on -
The link you put up only shows a limited time of reference for a reason.The funny thing is all you have left is to criticize me for typing a word wrong, which shows your I.Q.. There is nothing more for you here, please see your way to the door!
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on -
Brandon,
Where did I ever criticize you for typing a word wrong? Are you just making this stuff up?
Did you or did you not mean what you typed? If you mean something different then what you typed, then I will respond to your correction. In the meantime, all we have to go by is what you typed.
And now you choose to attack my IQ? What does that have to do with rational debate? Why not discuss issues, rather than attack the intelligence of those who disagree?
I don't attack your intelligence. Why do you attack mine?
Once more, there is strong evidence that we have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this will lead to dangerous warming. And you have said nothing that even begins to refute those facts, have you?
-
Permalink Reply by Tatum Harrison on -
hey guys sorry i've been gone for so long, i just started at college and haven't had time to browse the page. i wanted to show you an article written by elton robinson of the delta farm press the complete opposite of what enviormentalists want you to believe, global cooling.
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on
-
Tatum,
First, I wish you well as you start a year in college.
I read your liink. It is very similar to the movie you posted earlier. It is a listing of quotes of people with degrees that deny global warming. Are you aware that people with degrees are sometimes wrong? If people with degrees are sometimes wrong, how exactly is it that you are so certain that these people with degrees are not wrong?
The article quotes an engineer who says warming is only a result of natural causes and things will soon cool. Well quess what. I also am an engineer, and I understand that continued manmade CO2 emissions will probably cause drastic warming. He and I are both engineers. Does my opinion cancel out his? Why does the article quote only the engineer who denies manmade global warming, and not quote those who agree it it happening?
If all one had to do was quote people with degrees, one could prove that astrology is true, that vacinations are bad, that all sorts of quack medicines work, or that the earth is 6000 years old. That is why true science rejects the argument that an idea must be true whenever people with a degree say so.
Do these folks have data that denies global warming? Why don't they do what science does? Why don't they submit their data to the refereed science journals so it can be debated among scientists who understand the relevant facts? But they don't do that, do they? Why do they instead make statements directed at the general public?
Science is not based on finding someone with a degree that will say something to the public. It is based on facts. If they want to deny global warming, where are their facts?
-
Permalink Reply by RAS on -
[Quote "I also am an engineer, and I understand that continued manmade CO2 emissions will probably cause drastic warming." ] Tiger
Tiger,
CO2 is a teddy bear compared to NF3 used in LCD panel manufacturing.
NF3-> 550 years of Atmospheric lifetime, 17,200 times the greenhouse potency factor of CO2....not to mention Methane which is 25 time higher greenhouse potency of CO2.
This and many other factors are why just CO2 levels overlook the complexity of the complete planetary climate system (and again this also needs to consider Solar variations, axis tilt and orbit cycles).
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on
-
NF3 may be more potent than carbon dioxide per ton but exactly how many tons are we releasing of NF3? We release 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmospere every year. Every gallon of gas burned releases more than 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. That's a lot of CO2. So although the impact of one ton of CO2 may be small, the impact of billions of tons is huge.
Yes, of course scientists must take all major factors into account. Have you seen the arguments made by maistream scientists? They regularly take into account things like methane, water vapor, earth tilt, etc. All of these things are well known to scientists. See, for instance, http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf .
It is amazing to me that people write about the effects of earth tilt or methane as if this is all news to mainstream scientists. Do you guys take scientists to be idiots? Do you really think the papers in refereed journals are making it through peer review without anybody ever asking about the effects of methane or water vapor?
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on -
Tiger,
It has actualled cooled some since 1998. That means no global warming in the last decade. Just a fact and a few words;
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2...
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on
-
Still at it, eh, Kenneth?
In addition to the global warming trend, there are other short-term cycles that influence temperature. In particular, there are regular El Niño - Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles that affect the heat transfer between the oceans and the atmosphere. 1998 was such that the ENSO cycle tended to warm the atmosphere (taking heat from the ocean). 2007 was a year that the ENSO cycle tended to cool the atmosphere, (putting heat into the ocean). If you look at the global temperatures, and subtract the variations caused by the ENSO cycles, there is an overall trend upward.
See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends....
-
Permalink Reply by bronczyk.ba on -
Global warming is occuring . The question is wheher it is caused by man or by something else. I cant understand why you say global warming is a lie. Glaciers and ice caps are receding everywhere . thats a fact where is the lie?
What reference do you have to say u.s. oil reserves are larger that middle east? Us oil production peaked in 1970. Look at any oil production chart to verify.
How are environmentalists manufacturing a shortage of oil ? Thats really not that easy to do. What are the conservative environmentalists manufacturing?
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on
-
Ok Tatum, I don't see much support here at all for your assertion that global warming is a myth. All you have done is quote educated people who agree with you. What does that prove?
You could also quote educated people who say that the moon landings were a lie or that vacinations are a myth. After all, some educated people say such things. Educated people are sometimes wrong.
The scientific communinty has spent years studying the climate, and has found that the facts overwhelmingly support the conclusion that global warming is a real threat, and that manmade greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. See, for instance, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 , http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_... , and http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf.
Ok, Tatum, now that we have established that manmade global warming is accepted by a consensus of mainstream science, why is it that you so dogmatically insist that mainstream science is wrong? After all, mainstream scientists commit their lives to the study of science. How is it that you are so dogmatically certain that mainstream science is wrong, and those deniers on the fringe that you quote are right?
Let me guess. This is all about politics, isn't it? I guess that you learned global warming denial from right-wing pundits. Is that correct? Is that the reason you trust those on the fringes of science and insist that mainstream science are lying to you?
Just to clarify, when Rush Limbaugh says that mainstream scientists are wrong, please remember: Rush Limbaugh is not an expert on science.
I prefer to turn to mainstream science for my answers about science, not Rush Limbaugh. How about you?
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on
-
"mainstream scientists commit their lives to the study of science"
They commit there lives to getting published and getting grants. You can't get either unless your conclusions are sensational or anti captalist.
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger on
-
That's quite a charge, Kenneth. Do you have any evidence of this at all? Or are you just making this up?
So you are telling us that the studies in mainstream refereed journals are all lies, that the scientists are just making this up so they get funded? Have you ever seen a refereed journal? Have you ever seen the exhaustive nature of the search for truth in science? How can all of those experiments be fakes? How can all those hours be spent manufacturing data to meet the needs of the anti-capitalist authorities in charge of it all?
And why do scientists spend so much time trying to find the flaws in each other's work, if they all know that everything they do is flawed, and that it is all one big show to publish statistics to please their anti-capitlaist masters?
I'm sorry, Kenneth, but your story that all of these studies are faked in order to reach predetermined conclusions is so far out, its really not even worth the time it takes to refute it.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
