TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Adwatch: McCain ad blames Obama for gas price hike
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Adwatch: McCain ad blames Obama for gas price hike

Can we blame Democrats for high gases? I don't think so. Blaming Obama, flat out, for high gas prices, is simply misleading. What about our dependence on foreign oil, market speculation, higher worldwide demand? Horrible ad by the McCain campaign. I welcome more of them...

quote:

Adwatch: McCain ad blames Obama for gas price hike By The Associated Press Mon Jul 21, 2:22 PM ET TITLE: "Pump." LENGTH: 30 seconds AIRING: National cable and Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Northern Virginia and Wisconsin. SCRIPT: Announcer: "Gas prices � $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" Crowd chanting: "Obama, Obama, Obama!" Announcer: "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." KEY IMAGES: A lonely gas pump with heat waves rising around it. A pump's price readout rolls over to $5. At first indiscernible, background chanting grows louder. A smiling Obama appears on the screen with a pump rising over his right shoulder. It is now clear that the chants are a pro-Obama crowd: "Obama, Obama, Obama!" The screen goes dark. A clip appears of McCain speaking to a crowd, replaced by a still shot of McCain against a blue backdrop. ANALYSIS: This ad is the latest tit-for-tat commercial over energy in the presidential campaign. Earlier this month, an Obama ad accused McCain of being "part of the problem" of high gas prices. This one flat out blames Obama. The main premise of McCain's ad � that opposition to drilling is responsible for high gas prices � is an assertion that has been disputed even by McCain allies. There is a strong case that proponents make for additional drilling, but few will argue that it would alleviate this summer's prices at the pump. President Bush this month called on Congress to lift a moratorium that has blocked energy development over 80 percent of the country's coastal waters and to allow drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge. But Bush has said that these steps "will take years to have their full impact" on energy costs. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain backer, opposes lifting the ban on new oil drilling on the continental shelf and has said the moratorium is not responsible for rising prices. Randall Luthi, who heads the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service that operates the federal offshore energy leasing program, told The Associated Press this month that even if leases became available now, "It will be 5 to 10 years or longer for actual production." It is true that Obama opposes lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling and has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a step Bush and many Republicans support. The ad is silent on McCain's own record. McCain, too, opposes drilling in the Alaska refuge and during his 2000 presidential run opposed lifting the offshore drilling moratorium as well. But gas prices are proving to be a combustible political issue. A poll by the Pew Research Center in late June showed that nearly one of every two Americans now rate energy exploration, drilling and building new power plants as the top priority � all of them stands embraced by McCain. Only 35 percent gave those steps top priority five months ago. At the same time, nine in 10 people in a USA Today-Gallup Poll last month said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November. Those surveyed considered Obama better than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points. Since last month, McCain and the Republican Party have run three ads promoting McCain on energy; two of them criticize Obama. In a response to the ad, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said: "Barack Obama has fought for energy independence in the Senate and has a plan to invest $150 billion in renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and provide struggling families with an immediate energy rebate and a $1,000 middle-class tax cut." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721...oaUa2tGAuCs0NUE

The projected decrease in gas prices from opening up ANWR and offshore drilling is like 4 cents

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The projected decrease in gas prices from opening up ANWR and offshore drilling is like 4 cents

Not to mention the years it would take to get all the infrastructure to actually drill it set up.

I guess he finally got hold of that time machine!

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The projected decrease in gas prices from opening up ANWR and offshore drilling is like 4 cents

Not according to the GOP!

quote:

Another GOP Oil-Drilling Myth Is Born! By Eric Kleefeld - July 21, 2008, 4:39PM As you know, we've been posting here regularly about the GOP's frequent pushing of the myth that China is drilling for oil off American shores. Well here's another outlandish oil-drilling line: If not for the Dems in Congress, gas would cost two bucks a gallon! Here's what Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had to say in an op-ed for National Review, promoting drilling in ANWR: The fact of the matter is that Congress is standing in the way of $2-a-gallon gas. It is Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats who are refusing to let commonsense energy legislation come to the floor. That's right: Bachmann says that we can cut the price of gas from over four dollars down to two, a change of more than 50%, by just opening up some new drilling. What wonderful news! The problem, however, is that this just isn't true when you're working on the scale of a vast global marketplace. In the case of ANWR, a Department of Energy study this past May found that drilling there could potentially lower the price of a barrel of oil by a mere 75 cents -- only enough to lower the price of a gallon of gas by about two cents, and it would take until the year 2025. Proposed offshore drilling plans for other areas have yielded similar numbers, too. Oh well. Lowering the price by two dollars, or two cents -- what's the difference? We'll be hearing a lot more of this line over the next few months.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpo..._is_bo.php#more

Link to the Department of Energy report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

Yep, seen that. The way they can flat out lie to Americans is absolutely astonishing.

They are right tho that Obama isn't doing anyhting at all to lower oil prices. Like he wants to limit new drilling, tax oil companies etc, all that would actually raise oil prices. But as you all pointed out, those are all very long term aspects...

He would however increase spending and initiatives for new energy, which imo makes a lot more sense even tho it will raise energy prices in the short and mid term. But to be honest I don't know if the majority of the American people would agree with that, so the ad might work?

In all honesty I think high oil prices have been good for the US... Metro usage is at an all-time high, and the demand for electric hybrids has even Ford making plans to release new models. Hell, even Texas is releasing plans for wind farms.

Energy diversification is the only way to lower prices - simply increasing the short-term supply isn't enough to make a marked difference in the context of the global economy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In all honesty I think high oil prices have been good for the US... Metro usage is at an all-time high, and the demand for electric hybrids has even Ford making plans to release new models. Hell, even Texas is releasing plans for wind farms. Energy diversification is the only way to lower prices - simply increasing the short-term supply isn't enough to make a marked difference in the context of the global economy.

+1. We can't drill our way to lower gas prices. First off, we'de be releasing even more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, and secondly, it's a short-term solution. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars building more hydrocarbon infrastructure to get more hydrocarbons, they should be spending that money on building renewable energy infrastructure. The midwest is said to be the Saudi Arabia of wind. We got to get that up and running QUICK!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In all honesty I think high oil prices have been good for the US... Metro usage is at an all-time high, and the demand for electric hybrids has even Ford making plans to release new models. Hell, even Texas is releasing plans for wind farms. Energy diversification is the only way to lower prices - simply increasing the short-term supply isn't enough to make a marked difference in the context of the global economy.

Agreed. I'm actually kind of happy oil prices are rising. I think it will open a lot of people's eyes to how impractical urban planning has been in the US, and how dependent it is on motor vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton +1. We can't drill our way to lower gas prices. First off, we'de be releasing even more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, and secondly, it's a short-term solution. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars building more hydrocarbon infrastructure to get more hydrocarbons, they should be spending that money on building renewable energy infrastructure. The midwest is said to be the Saudi Arabia of wind. We got to get that up and running QUICK!

We can spend all we want on research, but there's no guarantee's any of it will work to the degree oil does, so why cripple ourselves on oil before that happens? Have you heard about the windfarms in Rock Port, MO in the midwest? Unless you are on top of Mt. Everest, you're going to get sustained winds about 30% of the time at best. The other 70% of the time, you'd have to have another source of energy to power those turbines. There is no storage on the grid, and no way to store that kind of energy; there aren't batteries large enough. So this is the fatal flaw of wind energy. It requires fossil fuel backup of at least 90% of the installed capacity of whatever the windmills are, as confirmed by Britain's EON report. It's even more complicated than that because we can't predict when and how hard the wind will blow, and it causes havoc on a grid, because you can't ramp these sources up. conventional sources, coal, nuke, and gas, take a long time to ramp up and down, so basically they have to be running all the time to cover the intermittency of wind, and the bottom line is wind turbines produce no net CO2 reduction, even though that's basically the only reason they exist... theoretically. To me it's sad that people buy into it, and the people responsible for those kinds of things will never be held accountable... we will only be able to talk about their good intentions. We will never be able to talk about the failed results. Here's a similar analogy. Let's say that the hybrid automobile industry and all the related advocates succeeded in getting just half the people in LA driving them. They all have to plug in somewhere to recharge the batteries. It will cause a blackout or brownout immediately if that were the case. The point is, where does that power come from? Right now there is still a little bit of excess capacity in this country, but it's declining rapidly and wind power and all the other alternative energy isn't really replacing it because it all requires backup.

So, it's just a campaign slogan IMO to say "we can't drill our way to lower prices". We absolutely CAN drill our way to lower prices. If we vastly increase the supply, the price will go down... simple. Why is it a short term solution when we have an incredible amount of untapped energy? So, awesome... the metro systems in cities is at an all time high. Great. In the meantime, our economy is being torn apart because of the high gas prices. When people aren't going anywhere, they aren't spending anything and the economy slows down. Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of this economy right now.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss So, it's just a campaign slogan IMO to say "we can't drill our way to lower prices". We absolutely CAN drill our way to lower prices. If we vastly increase the supply, the price will go down... simple. Why is it a short term solution when we have an incredible amount of untapped energy? So, awesome... the metro systems in cities is at an all time high. Great. In the meantime, our economy is being torn apart because of the high gas prices. When people aren't going anywhere, they aren't spending anything and the economy slows down. Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of this economy right now.

You need to do a little more research. We don't have huge untapped oil reserves. Even opening up all of ANWR would barely make a dent in the amount we consume daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

quote:

United States United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3�109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration[44], a 46% decline from 39 billion barrels (6.2�109 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53�106 m3/d), and had declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810�103 m3/d) by 2006. [45] This represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production. United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production). Hypothetically, if the United States was able to produce its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day (3.3�106 m3/d) without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption. With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949,[46] the likelihood of discovering new large oilfields is extremely slim. U.S. oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries. Because of declining production and increasing demand, US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.4 million barrels per day (540�103 m3/d) in 1970 to 13.6 million barrels per day (2.16�106 m3/d) in 2006. Its largest suppliers of petroleum products in 2006 were Canada and Mexico, which supplied 2.3 and 1.7 Mbbl/d (370�103 and 270�103 m3/d), respectively.[47] Imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the US Department of Energy projected that in 2007 oil consumption would rise to 20.9 million barrels per day (3.32�106 m3/d), while oil production would fall to 5.1 million barrels per day (810�103 m3/d), meaning that oil consumption would be nearly four times as high as oil production.[48] In April 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released a report giving a new resource assessment of the Bakken Formation underlying portions of Montana and North Dakota. The USGS believes that with new horizontal drilling technology there is somewhere between 3.0 and 4.5 billion barrels (480�106 and 720�106 m3) of recoverable oil remaining to be discovered in this 200,000 square miles (520,000 km�) formation that was initially discovered in 1951. If accurate, this reassessment would make it the largest continuous oil formation ever discovered in the U.S.[49] However, it would represent only a five to seven month supply of oil for the United States at current (2007) rates of consumption. A May 2008 assessment by the EIA estimated potential cumulative production of the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be a maximum of 4.3 billion barrels from 2018 to 2030. This estimate is a best case scenario of technically recoverable oil during the area's primary production years if legislation were passed in 2008 to allow drilling.[50]

The solution is painfully clear: we need to begin drastically cutting our dependence on oil. And that is NOT going to happen by attempting to reduce the price of gasoline to the ridiculously low prices we've been used to for years...

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We can spend all we want on research, but there's no guarantee's any of it will work to the degree oil does, so why cripple ourselves on oil before that happens? Have you heard about the windfarms in Rock Port, MO in the midwest? Unless you are on top of Mt. Everest, you're going to get sustained winds about 30% of the time at best. The other 70% of the time, you'd have to have another source of energy to power those turbines. There is no storage on the grid, and no way to store that kind of energy; there aren't batteries large enough. So this is the fatal flaw of wind energy. It requires fossil fuel backup of at least 90% of the installed capacity of whatever the windmills are, as confirmed by Britain's EON report. It's even more complicated than that because we can't predict when and how hard the wind will blow, and it causes havoc on a grid, because you can't ramp these sources up. conventional sources, coal, nuke, and gas, take a long time to ramp up and down, so basically they have to be running all the time to cover the intermittency of wind, and the bottom line is wind turbines produce no net CO2 reduction, even though that's basically the only reason they exist... theoretically. To me it's sad that people buy into it, and the people responsible for those kinds of things will never be held accountable... we will only be able to talk about their good intentions. We will never be able to talk about the failed results. Here's a similar analogy. Let's say that the hybrid automobile industry and all the related advocates succeeded in getting just half the people in LA driving them. They all have to plug in somewhere to recharge the batteries. It will cause a blackout or brownout immediately if that were the case. The point is, where does that power come from? Right now there is still a little bit of excess capacity in this country, but it's declining rapidly and wind power and all the other alternative energy isn't really replacing it because it all requires backup. So, it's just a campaign slogan IMO to say "we can't drill our way to lower prices". We absolutely CAN drill our way to lower prices. If we vastly increase the supply, the price will go down... simple. Why is it a short term solution when we have an incredible amount of untapped energy? So, awesome... the metro systems in cities is at an all time high. Great. In the meantime, our economy is being torn apart because of the high gas prices. When people aren't going anywhere, they aren't spending anything and the economy slows down. Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of this economy right now.

LOL... All nonsense. Every 18 months, they double energy output, and half production costs. I would say we are the same point the personal computer was in the late 1980's, early 1990's. Still expensive, but not as expensive, with substantially higher processing speeds. What you are saying is like saying in 1990, "Computers are ridiculous because they are too expensive and aren't fast enough. We need more abacus's!!!!"

Tell that to T. Boone Pickens, an oil man with some real sense....





www.pickensplan.com/

This seems like PLENTY of power being generated by wind to me... And this is JUST IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, where I now live! Your theory, I'm sorry to say the17sss, is pure nonsense.

quote:

Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center (735 MW) The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center is the world's largest wind farm at 735.5 MW capacity. It consists of 291 GE Energy 1.5 megawatt wind turbines and 130 Siemens 2.3 megawatt wind turbines spread over nearly 47,000 acres (190 km�) of land in Taylor and Nolan Counties.[16] The first stage of the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center consisted of 213 MW was completed in late 2005; phase two consisted of 223.5 MW was completed in the second quarter of 2006; and, phase three consisting of 299 megawatts, was completed in September 2006.[16] FPL Energy (through its subsidiaries) currently operates Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center. Sweetwater Wind Farm (585 MW) Construction of the Sweetwater Wind Farm has proceeded in five stages and some generating capacity is still being built. Sweetwater stage 4 employs 135 Mitsubishi 1.0 megawatt turbines and 46 Siemens 2.3 megawatt turbines. Its output is being sold to San Antonio�s CPS Energy under a 20-year purchase agreement. Construction of Sweetwater stage 5 began in February 2007, with completion expected by December 2007. Using 35 Siemens turbines, Sweetwater 5 will have a capacity of 80 MW.[17] Buffalo Gap Wind Farm (353 MW) Buffalo Gap 1 is a 120.6 MW wind farm located in Nolan and Taylor Counties, about 20 miles (30 km) south west of Abilene. The facility consists of 67 Vestas V-80 wind turbines, each rated at 1.8 MW. The wind farm was developed by SeaWest WindPower and is currently owned by AES Wind Generation. The power is sold to Direct Energy under a 15-year power purchase agreement.[18] Buffalo Gap 2 is a 232.5 MW expansion of the Buffalo Gap Wind Farm consisting of 155 GE wind turbines, each rated at 1.5 MW. The facility was developed by AES Wind Generation and went into commercial operation in June 2007. The power is sold to Direct Energy under a 10-year power purchase agreement.[18] King Mountain Wind Farm (278 MW) The King Mountain Wind Farm is a 278.2 MW wind farm, with 214 wind turbines in rows along the south-eastern and north-western edges of a mesa (tabletop mountain) surrounded by deep ravines.[19] Dust, sand and high temperatures place extraordinary demands on the wind turbines. Consequently, the design was modified for the desert-like conditions, providing additional cooling and protection against wind-blown sand. Annual electricity production is more than 0.75 TWh.[19] Roscoe Wind Farm (209 MW) The 209 megawatt (MW) Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas covers nearly 30,000 acres (120 km�) across three counties. It is Airtricity's third Texas project, and uses 209 1-MW Mitsubishi 1000A turbines. Airtricity's fourth Texas wind farm, the 126 MW Champion Wind Farm project, is located five miles (8 km) from the Roscoe site.[7]

Whatever dude... when something is actually proven to work as well as oil, I'll listen. In the meantime, I'd like our economy to run smoothly. T Boone Pickens invested 1 billion of his dollars into it... of course he's going to be rallying the troops to join in on wind, just the same as how Al Gore pushes people to invest in the same types of energy sources through the several companies he owns a stake in. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts, they are banking big time. Although, I do like Pickens' idea about using natural gas for our cars. GM makes 16 different types of cars that run on natural gas, none of which are available in the US which is fucking bullshit. I know we have assloads of natural gas here, and I'm a huge fan of it... and he was saying if we could offer natural gas at the pumps, we could reduce that 70% dependence on foreign oil 38%, which translates into $300 billion. Russia is using Gazprom to do it there and all over europe now, which is a good money making strategy for them since all those pipelines run from Russia.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Whatever dude... when something is actually proven to work as well as oil, I'll listen.

Flashback to the 1800s

Whatever dude, when something is proven to work as well as whale blubber, I'll listen...till then I know whats lighting my street lamps.


I mean really, this bury your head in the sand attitude is ridiculous. If people like you would stop cock-blocking any and all efforts to reduce dependency on oil we'd probably be much further along than we are now...

... cockblocking... like the dems in congress cockblocking every opportunity for us to get at our own resources and help relieve the pressure?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss ... cockblocking... like the dems in congress cockblocking every opportunity for us to get at our own resources and help relieve the pressure?

It's already been factually demonstrated above that this will bring little to no relief whatsoever.

It can't be factually demonstrated until the oil is pumped, the supply increases, and the prices don't come down. All the rest is politics man... people can manipulate the statistics and make up data to say whatever fits their agenda. BUt the basic principle of supply and demand holds. Even warren buffett, a bigtime democrat and pretty knowledgable econimic mind echoed the same statement.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Whatever dude... when something is actually proven to work as well as oil, I'll listen. In the meantime, I'd like our economy to run smoothly. T Boone Pickens invested 1 billion of his dollars into it... of course he's going to be rallying the troops to join in on wind, just the same as how Al Gore pushes people to invest in the same types of energy sources through the several companies he owns a stake in. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts, they are banking big time. Although, I do like Pickens' idea about using natural gas for our cars. GM makes 16 different types of cars that run on natural gas, none of which are available in the US which is fucking bullshit. I know we have assloads of natural gas here, and I'm a huge fan of it... and he was saying if we could offer natural gas at the pumps, we could reduce that 70% dependence on foreign oil 38%, which translates into $300 billion. Russia is using Gazprom to do it there and all over europe now, which is a good money making strategy for them since all those pipelines run from Russia.

"Whatever dude". That's it?? I just PROVED to you wind power is an EXTREMELY viable source of energy. And all of you have to say is that Pickens and Gore are in it for the money!?!? What, the oil companies aren't!?!? This is HILARIOUS to say the least. What do we do when even ANWAR runs out of oil? Keep trying to find more oil!? Especially after we release that carbon into the atmosphere...GREAT for the environment...

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It can't be factually demonstrated until the oil is pumped, the supply increases, and the prices don't come down. All the rest is politics man... people can manipulate the statistics and make up data to say whatever fits their agenda. BUt the basic principle of supply and demand holds. Even warren buffett, a bigtime democrat and pretty knowledgable econimic mind echoed the same statement.

Actually it HAS been factual demonstrated by people far, far more knowledgeable on US oil reserves and production than you and I. If people can manipulate data and statistics to fit their agenda, what the fuck is the point of debating anything?

quote:

Hypothetically, if the United States was able to produce its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day (3.3�106 m3/d) without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption.

You're saying this is fuzzy math and that you know that we have far greater oil reserves than the best experts from independent agencies can predict? The SUPPLY will not increase enough to make any meaningful dent in oil prices or reduce our enormous dependence on imported oil. This is fact. I'm quite certain that the EIA is not making up statistics and pulling data out of thin air to fit an agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "Whatever dude". That's it?? I just PROVED to you wind power is an EXTREMELY viable source of energy. And all of you have to say is that Pickens and Gore are in it for the money!?!? What, the oil companies aren't!?!? This is HILARIOUS to say the least. What do we do when even ANWAR runs out of oil? Keep trying to find more oil!? Especially after we release that carbon into the atmosphere...GREAT for the environment...

Jesus fucking Christ! You didn't PROVE anything to me. Again, as it happens many times, when I see zero progress is going to be made in me opening up someone else's eyes to the other perspective, and I know the other person's perspective will not make a dent on me, I choose not to continue to beat my head against the wall. It doesn't mean I've been proven wrong or that I can't muster the intellect or research. And if someone chooses to stop debating with you, it doesn't mean you're victorious as you love to claim. You have more stamina to argue than anyone I've ever seen, and sometimes people just don't want to fucking continue... if that spells victory to you, then fine. I was on another tangent when I started talking about Pickens and Gore by the way. I never even said oil companies aren't in it for the money... obviously they are. And we have more than just ANWAR... we have the OCS and the fucking shale, and the goddamn massive deposit just discovered in the Dakotas. PLENTY FOR DECADES!

And as for the carbon, I honesly don't give a fuck because I don't buy into the hype. Just yesterday, for example, I read a story about the APS (American Physical Society), 50,000 members strong of physicists, about their scientist Lord Monckton:

quote:

"Lord Monckton mathematically proved in his paper there is no climate crisis at all. He uses 30 equations to prove that the computer models used by the UN's climate panel were preprogrammed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is climate sensitivity, i.e., temperature increase in response to the greenhouse gas increase. This resulted in a 500 to 2,000% overstatement of CO2's affect on temperature in the UN's latest assessment report." In other words, the UN models were wrong. These models were programmed to give fundamentally fraudulent information to scare people into acting. Here are a few of the facts published by Lord Monckton, who, by the way, challenged Al Gore to numerous debates. Gore refuses. Gore will not debate this with anybody. Continued: "The UN's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500 to 2,000%. CO2 enrichment will add little more than one degree Fahrenheit (.6 degrees centigrade) to the global mean surface temperature by 2100. That's infinitesimal. None of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly. The UN's values for these three key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2500 papers. The UN's values for each of the three variables and hence for climate sensitivity are overstated. Global warming halted ten years ago. Surface temperature has been falling for seven years," which have documented with satellite temperature charts. "Not one of the computer models relied on by the UN predicted so long and rapid a cooling. The UN inserted a table into the scientists' draft overstating the effect of ice melt by 1,000%. It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible. "Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed. The only common factor is the sun. In the past 70 years the sun was more active than almost any other time in the last 11,400 years, based on a number of research data of things on Earth." Lord Monckton has proven what anybody with any common sense instinctively has known and understood for 19 to 20 years. This piece appeared July the 16th at DailyTech.com. It's "The Myth of Consensus Explodes," and there's another piece at ScienceandPublicPolicy.org featuring Lord Monckton and his work. Ironic that our very good friends at Der Spiegel, the German news magazine, explained earlier this month why the Persian Gulf states are switching to coal. Did you know that they are? This is fascinating. The Persian Gulf states are switching to coal to power their own power plants. Now, I might be saying, "Why the hell they doing that? They're sitting there on an ocean of oil." Well, with the prices of crude skyrocketing, the oil sheiks have determined it makes more sense to sell it than to use it. So they're turning to coal for their own energy needs to the detriment of the climate. Demand for coal plants is growing rapidly across the globe as the price of oil skyrockets and people are using it less. So it is ironic, expensive oil means more of that dirty coal is going to be used. It's ironic that the environmentalist dream of driving up the price of oil to make alternatives more attractive ends up making coal more attractive.

Basically every time your position is completely debunked as totally fucking retarded you head for the locker room. Understood.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis You're saying this is fuzzy math and that you know that we have far greater oil reserves than the best experts from independent agencies can predict? The SUPPLY will not increase enough to make any meaningful dent in oil prices or reduce our enormous dependence on imported oil. This is fact. I'm quite certain that the EIA is not making up statistics and pulling data out of thin air to fit an agenda.

This is what I'm talking about. The EIA also states that "At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the past 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years. That�s nearly a quarter-century of energy independence." That does not include the 3 to 4.3 billion barrels just found in the Dakotas and Montana, according to a U.S. Geological Survey Assessment (largest deposit found outside of Alaska). Don't forget about the 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is off limits. Must be horse shit though, if it doesn't line up with your wikipidia article.

It's big picture common sense. Why is this so hard to understand? Boosting domestic oil and energy production would start a series of effects for our economy that reach much farther than the gas pump. We would buy less of our oil from abroad, which would cut into the trade deficit. That would strengthen the dollar, which would then cut the price of oil even further. Food prices would stabilize. The boom in the energy industry would add good-paying jobs to the economy, which would boost retail sales as well. It could help take the edge off the credit crunch in the long run as people would have less need of credit.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Basically every time your position is completely debunked as totally fucking retarded you head for the locker room. Understood.

No, it's called Murphy's Law... you can only argue with an idoit for so long before it becomes difficult to figure out who the idiot is. I like to get out before that line becomes too blurred when I'm obviously not making a dent. You love to debate, as you call it, but you are too stubborn to admit when you are wrong and don't ever, even in the slighest way, stray from what you believe is true at the beginning of the "debate"

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It can't be factually demonstrated until the oil is pumped, the supply increases, and the prices don't come down. All the rest is politics man... people can manipulate the statistics and make up data to say whatever fits their agenda. BUt the basic principle of supply and demand holds. Even warren buffett, a bigtime democrat and pretty knowledgable econimic mind echoed the same statement.

What exactly is the agenda of the Department of Energy... hint: it's full of Bush appointees.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.