(06-27-2009 11:08 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-27-2009 10:31 AM)Paul M Wrote:  This from the dimmest bulb on the board.

You mean the guy claiming that he is winning an argument when in fact he are losing badly(2 times) is not as smart as me? THen there are the several others here who also think that Dr. "Not so Bright" Torch is winning(you and Trippy for 2). THis would also indicate a considerable lack of intelligence, thus dimmer bulbs than me. So I think you should change your post to who is the "dimmest bulb" on the board.

I am playing around with the abilities of some pretty dumb assed people in Politics Robs, so what I am doing is joking .... what you are doing is taking your self a tad too seriously (as usual).

You understand exactly what my little pom means. It pokes fun at the Messiah and his Retarded Assistant.

.

Owl makes a point. Harrison and his ideas on how to find longitude for the queen's prize were ignored by the Royal Academy because they held a bias for time pieces. I believe Newton himself perferred a celestial method, but I hope we have come a long ways since then. I believe what you will find is AGW deniers have a hand in someone's pocket who benefits from fossil fuels.

Mach you are so full of it. The people with a vested monetary stake in this are the GW hoaxsters. Just one more lie that you keep repeating. The scientists who speak against Al and company lose money and jobs for being principled. The lobby industry for GW is something rediculous like 100 to 1 vs. the oil industry. Don't remember the exact number but it's amazing. Just where in the hell do you think all these scientist who speak the GW gospel get their money from? Where do their paychecks come from?

(06-27-2009 08:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl makes a point. Harrison and his ideas on how to find longitude for the queen's prize were ignored by the Royal Academy because they held a bias for time pieces. I believe Newton himself perferred a celestial method, but I hope we have come a long ways since then. I believe what you will find is AGW deniers have a hand in someone's pocket who benefits from fossil fuels.

Good science backs its beliefs w/ facts.

(06-27-2009 08:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  AGW deniers

These would be the people who DO believe in GW?

You don't mind if I use that labal for your side from now on do you? Anti-Global Warming Deniers. AGWD's

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

USGA says -- 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate


Thirty thousand scientists and NASA say Global warming is a farce! So, WHY are we not drilling for our OWN oil here in the USA? WHY are we shutting down the coal mining, putting people out of jobs? Who wants to drive one of those little cars around all the BIG trucks on the roads? NOT ME!! IT WON'T happen...been there, done that, and lived to tell about it!!

Americans are being scammed!

The "Bakken," as it is known throughout America, is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil.

People in California, Nevada, and other states NEED to "wake up," and vote Pelosi, Reid and all the other traitors OUT OF OFFICE! Regardless of 'Party affiliation.'

I'd say to all states involved, take control of your state and get this out to the USA only, it is in your hands, and those states will be able to have no sales tax whatsoever, and, will be able to give back to the people like they do in Alaska. But, I hope the people in your state will never allow this information to be conveyed to China or Japan ~ but kept in the USA.

The 'Cap and Trade' bill which just passed in the House in Washington, has many things in it that we are not going to like. I just heard yesterday that in order for us to sell our homes, an "environmental inspector" will have to come into our homes and make sure we have double pain windows, sufficient insulation, all the newest low-electricity appliances and ~ an electrical outlet used to hook up electric cars!! What used to be able to be "negotiated" between the seller and the buyer, now must pass through a governmental agency! I know this sounds "unbelievable," but it IS True!

Most of us know about this "Bakken oil find" in North and South Dakota, and Montana. But read this article to the end. It puts a spin on it as to why this huge find has not been tapped yet. Could the OPEC countries, and our commitment to them, be a big part of the problem?

WILL ANY AMERICAN REALLY PUSH FOR IT!!?
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man! Was it ever BIG!! It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western
South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana. Check it out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea," says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada .

For years, U. S.oil exploration has been considered a "dead end." Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves....and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.

And, because this is "light, sweet oil," those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!!!

1.That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

2. And, if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

The following is data from 'The Stansberry Report Online':
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006


Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? It is because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate to our lives and our economy......WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East- - more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. "That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today," according to The Denver Post.

Do you think 'OPEC' will drop its price - - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention/ire up yet? I hope so!!
Now, while you're thinking about it ......and hopefully P.O'd, about it ~ do this:

1.) Pass along this information to all your family and friends. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should put a towel in your mouth the next time you want to complain about gas prices ~ because by doing NOTHING, you've forfeited your right to complain!
--------
Now, I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book. By the way, this info is all true. Check it out at the link below!!! GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It'll blow your mind!!

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

And we did buy Alaska for it's resources.

(06-30-2009 05:23 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

USGA says -- 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate


The "Bakken," as it is known throughout America, is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil.

What? We consume 10 million barrels of foreign oil a day. We'd burn through 3.5 billion in less than a year.

And production is ongoing as I type this, so...

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable..

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

With new horizontal drilling and completion technology taken into account, the technically recoverable resource
base for the entire Bakken Formation is potentially much larger. A draft study by the late organic geochemist
Leigh Price6 provides estimates ranging from 271 to 503 billion barrels (mean of 413 billion) of potential
resources in place. The study represents Dr. Price’s work as it stood at the time of his death in August 2000. It
was conducted while he was working for the USGS, but it did not receive a complete scientific peer review by
the USGS and was not published as a USGS product. A new assessment of the entire basin, due out in about a
year, will provide an updated USGS estimate of the technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken
Formation. If the formation’s potential bears out, this could (depending on recovery factors) increase the
estimate of technically recoverable crude oil resources in the United States by billions of barrels. For
perspective, consider that the current estimate of all technically recoverable crude oil resources in the United
States, not including Bakken oil resources, is 174.67 billion barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...gshock.pdf

Click the Image to zoom in.

Scene from a recent Obama Town Hall.

(06-30-2009 08:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable..

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted.

With new horizontal drilling and completion technology taken into account, the technically recoverable resource
base for the entire Bakken Formation is potentially much larger. A draft study by the late organic geochemist
Leigh Price6 provides estimates ranging from 271 to 503 billion barrels (mean of 413 billion) of potential
resources in place. The study represents Dr. Price’s work as it stood at the time of his death in August 2000. It
was conducted while he was working for the USGS, but it did not receive a complete scientific peer review by
the USGS and was not published as a USGS product. A new assessment of the entire basin, due out in about a
year, will provide an updated USGS estimate of the technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken
Formation. If the formation’s potential bears out, this could (depending on recovery factors) increase the
estimate of technically recoverable crude oil resources in the United States by billions of barrels. For
perspective, consider that the current estimate of all technically recoverable crude oil resources in the United
States, not including Bakken oil resources, is 174.67 billion barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...gshock.pdf

Yeah. Unfortunately his assessment was way off, and it's just 3-4 billion, if I'm reading things correctly and as you quoted above. That's a lot, and it's being produced, but it won't amount to much of anything as far as replacing our current imports of foreign oil.

One thing I feel I should point out to those debating the topic here is that the term "global warming" is outdated. While the media and many non-scientist still use the term, most researchers within scientific circles now prefer to use the term "anthropogenic climate change". There are a few reasons for this change in terminology:

1) Global warming is a misleading term as it implies that anthropogenic factors can only lead to increases in average temperature. Like the argument for irreducible complexity postulated by ID proponents, it completely ignores that the inverse scenario may also be possible (i.e. that anthropogenic activity may lead to a decrease in average temperature). This is why the term "climate change" is now used; it allows for a broader description of phenomena.

2) The term "global warming" only deals with temperature. However, temperature is not the sole factor that governs a region or the Earth's climate. Rather, climate encompasses temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, winds, precipitation, and numerous other factors. By using the term "climate change", scientists are able to describe a wider range of phenomena such as alterations in precipitation levels and changes in wind patterns.

They changed the terminology because they were wrong once again. We're going to freeze, no we're going to burn up, no it's getting colder, no hotter, colder, hotter. They use climate change to cover there asses for whatever nature decides to do today.

(07-01-2009 07:03 AM)Paul M Wrote:  They changed the terminology because they were wrong once again. We're going to freeze, no we're going to burn up, no it's getting colder, no hotter, colder, hotter. They use climate change to cover there asses for whatever nature decides to do today.

Exactly.

Moonbats: "The climate's changing!!!!"

Me: Yeah, it's been doing it for a little over 4 billion years now.

(06-30-2009 05:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-27-2009 08:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  AGW deniers

These would be the people who DO believe in GW?

You don't mind if I use that labal for your side from now on do you? Anti-Global Warming Deniers. AGWD's

Sorry Paul. The A in AGW stands for Anthroprogenic.

Anyway, APG deniers are traditionally referred to as "scientists". They take the empirically derived facts and construct theories based on those.

The alarmists, GW supporters, or cargo-cult science followers are, ironically enough, religious luddites...the villian that science has called out for centuries.

(07-01-2009 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Sorry Paul. The A in AGW stands for Anthroprogenic.

Damn! I should have known that. I guess I was having a brain fart.

I thought it was Al Gore Warming.


Hey warmers, get your leader to stop traipsing around the country in Suburban convoys, private jets, and 100' house boats, and then you can start preaching to me about my f'n Tahoe. Until then, kindly F-O.

The main weakness of the AGW crowd is simple - they do not practice what they preach, which should be....

A) encourage scientific debate
B) live a truly green lifestyle
C) make a green lifestyle a money-saving change for a household

As soon as the main proponents of AGW embrace the above in some order, the green movement will succeed.

Right now, unfortunately for the green movement they are only close on C, but maybe C is the most important bullet? I've posted before about how I have adapted some "greenie" choices (Victory Garden, rainbarrels, high effeciency furnace and A/C etc. We have seen substantial saving on grocery bills, some savings on water (water is cheap here) and positively amazing savings on our energy bills... but to be clear, I made these changes because they save money, it was never about Heeding Al Gore, or Worshiping Gaia, or watching Leonardo DiCaprio's Movie.

(07-01-2009 08:46 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  The main weakness of the AGW crowd is simple - they do not practice what they preach, which should be....

A) encourage scientific debate
B) live a truly green lifestyle
C) make a green lifestyle a money-saving change for a household

As soon as the main proponents of AGW embrace the above in some order, the green movement will succeed.

Right now, unfortunately for the green movement they are only close on C, but maybe C is the most important bullet? I've posted before about how I have adapted some "greenie" choices (Victory Garden, rainbarrels, high effeciency furnace and A/C etc. We have seen substantial saving on grocery bills, some savings on water (water is cheap here) and positively amazing savings on our energy bills... but to be clear, I made these changes because they save money, it was never about Heeding Al Gore, or Worshiping Gaia, or watching Leonardo DiCaprio's Movie.

Our approach sounds a lot like yours. We're pretty diligent about keeping the AC/furnace off most of the time, we're saving rain and other gray water, our gradening has yielded limited results, but we're seeing some progress.

And like you, the number one reason is saving money. Second reason is a genuine concern for the environment. There's a lot of resources there, but they can't be wasted and squandered.

If that was the main message from environmentalists, they'd cause less strife. But, their own words indicate they wan't major social upheaval.