I'm with you man... we have it but won't drill for it because of the environmentalists. the anware area of alaska is the size of SC, and the area we would drill is the size of JFK airport... but, we still can't get our own oil there. Rediculous. The weather channel founder isn't active any more... he's not on the board of direc. or the chairman able to make the decisions any more about what goes on the air.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm with you man... we have it but won't drill for it because of the environmentalists. the anware area of alaska is the size of SC, and the area we would drill is the size of JFK airport... but, we still can't get our own oil there. Rediculous. The weather channel founder isn't active any more... he's not on the board of direc. or the chairman able to make the decisions any more about what goes on the air.

you slightly missed the point. drilling for oil is not going to solve the problem, it will only delay the inevitable. we need to innovate new ways to produce electricity so we don't have to rely on a source that is very finite.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm with you man... we have it but won't drill for it because of the environmentalists. the anware area of alaska is the size of SC, and the area we would drill is the size of JFK airport... but, we still can't get our own oil there. Rediculous. The weather channel founder isn't active any more... he's not on the board of direc. or the chairman able to make the decisions any more about what goes on the air.

wow so you think to solve our current energy problems we have to go and drill some more for oil?

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I've already read it.

No you haven't.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

This is the graph that the FOX article is referring to. Obviously, they wouldnt actually PUT the graph in the FOX article, because of obvious reasons. The authors of the Nature article are referring to the green line from 2005 to 2010. FOX is all about balance, except when the real information completely contradicts their goals.

The thing that really gets me is that if any intelligent reader would put two seconds worth of effort into actually looking at the paper they are referring to, theyd see how big a crock of shit FOX is.

I mean CHRIST - if the paper really calls AGW a load of CRAP, then why doesnt it LINK to the effing PAPER?! It cant even do you that much. What a load.

___________________

Clovis... I forgot, you're me and you know what I read. For the other point, I didn't have time to fully respond. I wasn't suggesting drilling for oil is the answer forever... I was saying that I agree that we need to stop getting it from the middle east. We actually get the bulk of it from Canada and Mexico, but we have enough of our own oil not being utilized where if we would, we wouldn't have to get it from the middle east. Alternative energy is great... I'm all for it, but the fact is that for at least 15 or 20 years, oil is the engine that drives the economy, and there is nothing even remotely close to replacing it.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Clovis... I forgot, you're me and you know what I read.

Given that you seem to have assimilated absolutely NOTHING from the book, nor understood anything within its pages, nor understand that this pseudo "other side" of the story is actually called REALITY, you either did not read it, or are incredibly fucking dense.

I'm hoping you didn't read it. Because if you did, and are still spouting this absolute nonsense, that is really fucking tragic.

quote:

Alternative energy is great... I'm all for it,

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie This is the graph that the FOX article is referring to. Obviously, they wouldnt actually PUT the graph in the FOX article, because of obvious reasons. The authors of the Nature article are referring to the green line from 2005 to 2010. FOX is all about balance, except when the real information completely contradicts their goals. The thing that really gets me is that if any intelligent reader would put two seconds worth of effort into actually looking at the paper they are referring to, theyd see how big a crock of shit FOX is. I mean CHRIST - if the paper really calls AGW a load of CRAP, then why doesnt it LINK to the effing PAPER?! It cant even do you that much. What a load.

Jesus that is a crime.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

Clovis, Clovis, Clovis... do you see what you are saying? You are basically saying that I can't possibly be intelligent about the issue unless I believe your side of things. Thank you for proving my point. I'm telling you that I have the opinions/beliefs I do BECAUSE I've read and studied both sides. You are being pushed in the direction you are because of political bullshit, and the super slanted agenda driven liberal media... so that is what you are reading and researching. I don't blindly believe what people tell me to believe, I look at both sides, then come up with a reasonable idea. After you read the book I suggested, and get at least an idea about the side you aren't even willing to listen to, then you can comment on who is ignorant. Until then, take it easy with the personal attacks man... I never tried to make this personal on anyone. Jesus

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss and the super slanted agenda driven liberal media...

youre a complete and total fuckwit.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss ALT.... it's the topic of the room and the overwhelming body of stupidity caused me to make an attempt to bring up the common sense side, or at least a different side of the coin to make people think. If that makes me a pussy, then whatever. Deferring to name calling is cool though... what are you, 12?

No, I just happen to think people who can't stand behind their own opinions are basically acknowledging their own lack of faith in them, and I refer to such people as "pussies."

___________________
last minute disco dot net