Evil has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of men have earned, that Allâh may make them taste a part of that which they have done, In order that they may return . ( quran 29 : 41 )
http://www.ansarsunna.com/en
The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet
Al Gore's views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself.
Published Oct 31, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Nov 9, 2009
-
Posted By: newsweek_reader777 @ 03/09/2010 2:50:09 AM
-
Posted By: vicious misanthrope hating for sport @ 11/11/2009 12:58:17 PM
How Al Gore became a scientist??????????
Well, fiirst you have to "invent the internet"! After that magic, you would develop theories that allow for the mainstay concept based on the long treasured hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do"!
Al Gore uses a private jet approximately 30x per year and is ferried around in limos with a horde of secret service personel that only taking those facts into consideration proves his carbon footprint is 30-50x the average Americans, minimum!
Thta alone should point out that the "emperor has no clothes on"!-
Posted By: ruprik @ 12/10/2009 12:37:21 PM
Not to mention his science grades - "sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year" not to mention his college board achievement scores: 488 (out of a possible 800) in physics and 519 (out of 800) in Chemistry.
-
-
Posted By: ruprik @ 12/10/2009 12:33:08 PM
When will you embrace at least a minimum level of journalistic integrity and change your name to "Liberal OpinionWeek"?
-
Posted By: Tucci @ 11/26/2009 2:20:53 PM
So can we look forward (in the light of ClimateGate) to a new cover with a picture of Mr. Gore over which is poised a ROTTEN apple and the caption "The Flim-Flam Man's Flim-Flam Man" now?
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/27/2009 2:11:16 PM
Tucci:So can we look forward (in the light of ClimateGate) to a new cover with a picture of Mr. Gore over which is poised a ROTTEN apple and the caption "The Flim-Flam Man's Flim-Flam Man" now?------------------------------------------------------
A delightful vision which we will never see on the cover of Newsweek or any other journal of the MSM. They are all too invested in "climate change," the hoax formerly known as "global warming."
-
-
Posted By: awurth @ 11/25/2009 12:12:30 PM
What will you do with earth?
Will it be just another beautiful jewel?
???A decimated fragment of the other particles
Floating through vastness?
-
Posted By: sims117 @ 11/20/2009 1:07:18 PM
I don't like the writer's somewhat flippant style in this piece. They seem to think that intelligence and facts are tedious. I also think it's a waste of time to use the phrase: deep throated endorcement. Again, this works into the reporters over-all kitchy, playful energy with this piece that reflects poorly on them and seems to make light of Gore's concerns.
-
Posted By: petasoncrack @ 11/23/2009 11:43:44 AM
your a very negative person. there was nothing wrong with the article or the writer, i think your parents didnt love you as a child and thats why your so negative. look at the happiness in life, get laid, do whatever makes you happy.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/23/2009 12:08:02 PM
This reply wouldn't be so absurd if you didn't look at the poster's name: "Peta's on Crack". THis guy is talking about parents who loved them and negativity...oh yeah...and looking at happiness. Interesting.
-
-
-
Posted By: Paula Marie @ 11/10/2009 12:49:23 PM
Too bad Mr. Gore did not become President Gore - we would at last have had a president who cares about American's dwindling natural heritage and our environment. I could never understand why people called him "Gore the Bore" when he was running for office against Mr. Bush (who could definitely be called a bore if not for his amusing idiocy). I have decided that people find Gore boring precisely because he is not. He is articulate with a strong passion. Many people don't understand his intellectualism. Like many great artists and writers, he'll be better loved in history than he was in life.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/10/2009 1:30:48 PM
Paula,
Al Gore is clinically insane. A Gore presidency would have been a disaster. Gore is the Gen. Jack D. Ripper of the environmental wacko movement.
-
Posted By: vicious misanthrope hating for sport @ 11/11/2009 12:44:55 PM
Agreed, the choices for president in 2000 were awfull but even as bad as he was Bush was the better choice, just like Obama was the better choice between him and Mcain!
-
-
-
Posted By: jimiw@suddenlink.net @ 11/10/2009 6:21:51 PM
Al Gore a scientist - what a joke. I asked nicely for you to quit sending ObaMao's propoganda rag parading as news to my house - please don't kill another tree for me!
-
Posted By: burbank @ 11/10/2009 3:08:12 AM
When Mr. Gore actually gets his PhD in climate science research, then I might buy into his climate change fantasy. Until that time happens, he, and others of his climate change ilk, are nothing more than AGW fear mongers, who seek to enrich themselves at taxpayer expence.
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/09/2009 11:51:02 PM
Despite all his so called green upgrades at his home, Gore the Bore continues to use 20 times the electricity of the average homeowner. He continues to fly in a private jet, drive around in limos and live like a King. When he sells his mansion and buys a 1500 square foot house powered by wind and solar with rain barrels to collect water for his yard, rides a bike, drives a mini hybrid and flies coach since first class is not as carbon friendly then at least the mindless loser will be practicing what he preaches.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 11/03/2009 6:53:06 AM
Given some of the bitter, nasty, snarling comments on this thread and others, you'd think the real reason that Republicans and other conservatives are so bitterly opposed to global warming research is that apparently Iraq and Afghanistan don't kill people fast enough...
I really think that's what this is about - a bunch of old people who really don't care about the world they leave to their kids, or whether or not their grandchildren are going to die of dehydration or starvation today because we've killed the ecosystem that provides us with clean air, food, and water. I really think there are just a lot of old, bitter Republicans getting older, getting closer to their own deaths, miserable with their lives and who want to see most of the rest of the planet killed because they can't handle that either. But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.-
Posted By: Observerguy @ 11/04/2009 2:38:10 PM
OK. You're wrong.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 11/05/2009 4:30:22 AM
Thank you. Please prove it to me in a way I can believe in.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 7:12:15 AM
Vigilance:Thank you. Please prove it to me in a way I can believe in.------------------------------------------------------------
Vigilance,
On the scales of credibility, Global Warming fits in somewhere between the legend of the man in the moon and the stories of alien abduction.
But forget that, how did you like Tuesday's election? I really enjoyed it.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 11/06/2009 7:32:52 AM
"On the scales of credibility, Global Warming fits in somewhere between the legend of the man in the moon and the stories of alien abduction.
But forget that, how did you like Tuesday's election? I really enjoyed it. "
I'm not campaigning for anybody and I have a life to live, so I didn't pay much attention. I assume Republicans won a few seats - I heard they won two governorships. No doubt you see this as an inevitable conservative backlash in preparation for a new conservative age of dominance over silly liberals. If such makes you happy, then I am happy for your thought. I have other things on my mind.
Now, on the credibility tip, global warming has plenty of credibility, just not with you or most other Republicans. For me, I spent a week last year in 105-110 degree heat watching the rest of the world (American Midwest, China, Mexico, India, many other locations around the globe) flood like the end times. That week was NOT a normal weather pattern, at least not to me. It was, so far, the only time I have actually agreed with Al that "the world has a fever" - I don't think we have a perpetual fever going on, but that felt like a week of natural disaster caused by the world's empires of unrestrained capitalism and smoke-belching factories. That is my take. It does not have to be yours.
You can think whatever you want about global warming. I'm not going to say "you might be right", because I am absolutely aware you think you are "never wrong" - in your words, if I recall correctly. All the same, if I see any more Republican Presidents reach into my state's economy and prevent us from passing emission controls - Bush absolutely just reached in and *** with us in that way - followed by years of horrific wildfires, summer heat that makes me feel like I want to die, and more arrogant mockery by people who've studied less climate science than I have - as I believe is true of you - I'm going to want to go ass-kicking. And that's just how it is.
Try not to be wrong about all this, "donald". I know you have absolute, unquestioned faith in the rightness of everything you say, just like Rush Limbaugh does. I might advocate the thought to you that if you are wrong and millions worldwide die from ecological catastrophe, they're going to beat the Hell out of you forever in Heaven, and a good job too. And with that I end my post.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 8:09:49 AM
Vigilance,
The 2009 elections were the beginning of a course correction for the Ship of State. It will continue in 2010 and 1012. Obama and the dems have overreached and the American voter has begun pushing back.
Vigilance, you are aware that many of the people peddling the global warming hoax were predicting a new ice age back in the 1970s? Temperatures worldwide have been declining. That is why the movement switched the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." A sort of bait and switch. All their predictions have proved to be false. Just do a little research on your own. Don't fall for the "current wisdom."
And Vig, I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it. I depend upon my intelligence guided by my experience. And my experience tells me to "trust, but verify."
Check your facts and we can speak of this again.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 11/06/2009 8:43:07 AM
Who can find a genuine fact in this stupid debate? Both sides ignore and finesse the data. My view is that Al is right about the eventual effects but that he is wrong about the timetable. I think we have more time than he thinks. I do know that "conventional wisdom" is wrong, but truthfully, I'm just not a big idea of factories that belch smoke at this point anyway. As a nation we ought to be working towards cleaner air and the reclamation of the carbon that usually gets belched out as smoke for fuel. Some organizations are already doing it.
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 11/06/2009 8:47:03 AM
I don't like the alarmists, Donald. But I also don't like people who just flat-out deny that we as humans can destroy this planet with environmental damage. Global warming or not, we can sure wreck this mudball if we don't get better about not polluting in general - carbon, benzoates, PCBs, etc., and everything else we toss uncaringly away. I think we need to do better.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 8:58:36 AM
Vigilance:I don't like the alarmists, Donald. But I also don't like people who just flat-out deny that we as humans can destroy this planet with environmental damage. Global warming or not, we can sure wreck this mudball if we don't get better about not polluting in general - carbon, benzoates, PCBs, etc., and everything else we toss uncaringly away. I think we need to do better.-------------------------------------------------------------
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to claim that mankind can destroy God's creation. Yes, we should control unlimited pollution, but in order to do that we would have to start with China and India and I doubt that they will go along.
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 11/06/2009 11:31:22 AM
i beleive i am split between the two of you....
there is a slim chance we as the human race would have any chance of "destroying the earth". the earth is a stubbourn mother, and has survived much worse. we on the other hand, are a fragile race, and we could destroy ourselves through pollution, but never the earth. we would die off far too early to make any permanent impact on our planet.
i think we can all agree that we do have a real pollution problem, if not for the earths health, but for our own. contamination of ground water/soil/air is what will do us in. we already ingest thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deadly, toxic, and hazardous chemicals daily albeit in small amounts (add those amounts up over generations and we see childeren born with them already in their systems). it truely is a generational problem. we are birthing childeren into an era where we pump our food full of chemicals/hormones because its "better for you", we replace one type of pollution with another, we ignore natures signs, and the signs within our own bodies.
ive noticed local signs of ecosystem collapse. something so simple as not seeing ANY gardner snakes around my area all spring/summer, not seeing nearly as many amphibians, less bees/wasps and insects in general. basically a collapse of the building blocks of the food chain. we are impacting our environment in a very real way. i fully agree that both sides of this argument (as with any argument) are "finnessing" the facts and data to prove a point, and its usually a point which is most expedient to the one spewing "facts".
i agree with Vig that we need to do better, and we (as in people LIKE you donald, and people like me and Vig) need to work in unison to make it work. instead of peddling medicine (opinions/pseudo facts) and bandaids (policies) to justify our positions.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 3:24:38 PM
hlgns,
The pollution is now mostly coming from China and India. These two powerhouses have no intention of stifling their economies to institute anti-pollution measures. We should certainly take what measures that we can to preserve the environment but there is no urgent need to set our economy back to appease environmental extremists.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/06/2009 5:04:25 PM
donald -
That is not entirely true. I have an entrepreneur friend in a business doing very well, who gets raw product from China. Thus he travels there frequently.
You are correct in saying China is one of the biggest polluters in the world today. However on top of a $498 billion (converted from yuan) government billion dollar stimulus package from China (part of which government plans to enhance sewage and rubbish treatment facilities and prevent water pollution, accelerate green belt and natural forest planting programs, and increase energy conservation initiatives and pollution control projects) China has also conducted the following:
Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry level agency, reflecting the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental protection. Beginning in 2006, the government greatly expanded expenses into environmental protection, and a series of new laws have been passed. Enforcement of these laws is also being expanded. The PRC has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. During the 11th 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), the PRC plans to reduce total emissions by 10% and bring China's energy efficiency up by 20%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years. In the first half of 2007, China's total energy consumption per unit of output improved by 2.8% and China's sulfur dioxid emissions fell by 0.6%, showing that these new measures have the potential to slow down pollution growth. - AP 2007-07-30
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/09/2009 11:25:47 PM
The bottom line is they will not participate in Cap and Trade despite their so called advancements in pollution control. If they don't we don't period. They already have an economic advantage because they are artificially holding down the value of their currency to keep selling their goods at cheap prices and hold on and expand their market share. In the meantime this forces more of jobs overseas or out right closes our plants. Stick cap and trade where the sun don't sign.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 6:07:20 PM
Rob,
The proof will be in the pudding. Let India and China take measures to control pollution so that they are at the level of the US and then we can take it from there on what further steps are required.
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 3:52:03 PM
donald/paulejb,
Don't mislead hglns and others reading your simplified post. The real measure of country's pollution is on a per capita basis.
The thesis that our country will throttle economic growth and prosperity is just a Republican talking point in its obstructionist its usual stance. Investments in smart grid, solar power, wind turbines, biomass fuel and photovoltaic cells is seen to double employment in the energy and utilities sector.
I would guess "smart" is something that the intellectually-challenged Republicans will be hard put to come up with in terms of better proposals.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 5:53:58 PM
Apolitical,
And here I thought it was based on air quality and water quality. The US leads the world in anti-pollution measures and US innovation will help the rest of the world achieve our level of clean air and water.
Liberals are Luddites when it comes to technology to preserve the environment. Are you a Luddite, Apolitical?
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/07/2009 1:58:41 AM
donald,
Apparently, for your absence of logic, you found reading the dictionary and finding rarely used words your new source of amusement. Ok, congratulations. That's several step up from the dumbing down of listening to Palin, Rush, Beck, Michele "Captain Crazy" Bachmann and Virginia Foxx.
Looks like the right-wing nuts are preparing China and India as red herring for another excuse for their worn-out DO-NOTHING party line stance.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 5:31:03 AM
Apolitical:donald,Apparently, for your absence of logic, you found reading the dictionary and finding rarely used words your new source of amusement. Ok, congratulations. That's several step up from the dumbing down of listening to Palin, Rush, Beck, Michele "Captain Crazy" Bachmann and Virginia Foxx.Looks like the right-wing nuts are preparing China and India as red herring for another excuse for their worn-out DO-NOTHING party line stance.------------------------------------------------
Just trying to enlighten the ill educated masses, Apolitical. I know the deficiencies of the current American education system so I try to remedy some of it's inadequacies. I am am delighted you noticed and have garnered some benefit from my efforts. Good for you!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 11/06/2009 4:10:02 PM
good thing im not an extremist....although i am environmentally concious, there is a balance to be had in that regard. i cant expect a soccer mom to stop driving her excursion all over town anymore than i can expect my neighbor to recycle properly (which they dont). but i will stay my own course and do what i can i suppose. i ride the bus/walk/bike to work and other places, i recycle EVERYTHING, i dont throw items away, i donate instead, and above all i get out and enjoy the nature i have here and now because the odds of my favorite forest becoming a suburban development are extremely high.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 6:03:47 PM
hlgns,
I commend you for your environmental consciousness. I do believe that we should each, as good citizens, take common sense steps to help maintain the quality of air and water. Conservatives believe in conserving the environment but we are not taken in by the global warming hoax. Al Gore has earned himself $100 million selling his snake oil remedies to gullible fools.
-
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 11/06/2009 4:04:46 PM
having been to both china and india i can attest to the pollution myself... it is terrible. everywhere there are mounds of garbage on the streets that never get picked up, only slowly burnt away. when i arrived in hyderbad by plane and finally got out into the open air outside the airport, all i could smell was burning garbage. i actually had to control myself to keep from vomiting. i got used to it after a few weeks, but still. and hyderbad is claimed to be one of the CLEANEST cities in India. the smog is so thick in Bangalore that traffic police are required to wear breathing masks because so many had been diagnosed with throat cancer, cancer in the nose, and a whole slew of other health problems. the blue cloud of smog litterally hangs 20 feet over the street.
i watched an "untouchable" drink from a pot hole in the middle of the street. brown, oil/gas laced water. and he drank cup after cup after cup. that is the norm.\
all these things are sooo sad to see, but what are we to do? the scale of pollution in those countries is so huge they barely address it because there is no way to come up with a policy that addequately addresses the problem.
just thinking about it again makes me sick to my stomach. but, thankfully, for my short time in this existance i live in a place that is a thousand times cleaner, a thousand times more peaceful, and a thousand times more free. all i can do is, as ghandi said, "represent the change you wish to see in the world". -
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 3:46:41 PM
-
-
-
Posted By: sonofluger @ 11/09/2009 1:45:11 PM
freakin hilarious. you would think that god would want you to own up to your mistakes and take care of the vessel that he kindly provided for you. but, in typical christian fashion, you'll just sin until the day you take your last breath and pathetically beg for forgiveness. how unlike christ you christians are
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/09/2009 3:45:11 PM
sonofluger:freakin hilarious. you would think that god would want you to own up to your mistakes and take care of the vessel that he kindly provided for you. but, in typical christian fashion, you'll just sin until the day you take your last breath and pathetically beg for forgiveness. how unlike christ you christians are-------------------------------------------------
What does being Christian have to do with it? Don't Muslims, Hindus and atheists pollute too? Or doesn't that count?
-
-
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 9:01:16 AM
Vigilance,
Give it time. Someone is bound to build a better mousetrap. This country has often invented it's way out of problems.
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 11/06/2009 11:37:41 AM
this is very true. and something i think about alot.
thankfully i have alot of optimism in the human race, sometimes it is very misplaced though. but most of the time just having that optimism gets you by, AND gets the job done.
heres to building better mousetraps....-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 3:26:51 PM
hlgns763:this is very true. and something i think about alot. thankfully i have alot of optimism in the human race, sometimes it is very misplaced though. but most of the time just having that optimism gets you by, AND gets the job done.heres to building better mousetraps....--------------------------------------------------
And to the world beating a path to our door.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bighappy @ 11/07/2009 12:36:29 AM
Vigilance, remember, Al Gore and Co now name it "climate change", the "global warming" is no more. It is very profitable (relatively and directly speaking) to use this phrase, because "global cooling" is also the "climate change". Unlike the "global warming" this slogan will never expire, because absolutely stable climate can be only in cosmos vacuum.
So, we will fight with CLIMATE CHANGE, forever.-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/07/2009 4:12:33 PM
I haven't yet come accross any consensus that global warming wasn't occurring. THe question for any debate is whether it is caused by man. Global Warming, or climate change, is not really in dispute.
-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 4:58:24 AM
Rob007:I haven't yet come accross any consensus that global warming wasn't occurring. THe question for any debate is whether it is caused by man. Global Warming, or climate change, is not really in dispute.-------------------------------------------------
Maybe so, but there is no proof that it is not a natural phenomenon unaffected by mankind's actions. So why rush into making changes that will damage the economy and the quality of life?
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/08/2009 12:38:02 PM
There actually is some proof, however it remains inconclusive. Why act? Because it is an opportunity to forestall impending ecological disasters (in regards to productivity for mankind) that may in future cost incalulable damage that if acted upoon too late could change and diminish entire economies. This is well understood by both the developed and developing world which are already looking at twofold solutions; one being commonly published "green" solutions. The other being climate engineering technology which is currently at its genesis of development. Civilization came to be because of mankind's ability to alter his environment - this is just another level of the same, with preservation of economies in mind.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: TheBloviator @ 11/08/2009 11:32:11 PM
Al Gore is a fraud. His claims that CO2 emissions cause global warming are fraudulent. He also has a clear conflict of interest in promoting cap and trade because he stands to become a billionaire from the taxation of carbon emissions.
-
Posted By: Rob007 @ 11/09/2009 4:15:28 PM
The C02 content of the atmosphere is usually expressed in parts per million (ppm) by weight and the use of fossil fuels is expressed as so many tons of carbon burned per year. At present the burning of fossil fuels releases 7 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year in the form of carbon dioxide gas, C02.
C02 weighs 44 / 12 times the weight of carbon. This is derived from the atomic weights
of carbon, 12, and oxygen, 16. The molecular weight (MW) of C02 is 12 + (2 x 16) = 44 and the MW of carbon is 12. So C02 is 44/12 = 3.67 times heavier than carbon per molecule.Therefore burning one billion tons of carbon produces 3.67 billion tons of C02.
(A) and so burning 7 billion tons of carbon will produce 26.7 billion tons of C02
The weight of the Earth's atmosphere can be calculated as follows. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is on average 14.5 pounds per square inch = 10 tons per square metre. This pressure is due to the weight of atmosphere above an area at sea level of one square metre.
The radius of the Earth "r" is 5,925 km and so the surface area of the Earth (land and ocean) is 4 x "pie" x "r" squared = 4 x 3.142 x 5925 x 5925 = 441 million square kilometres = 441,000 billion square metres.
Therefore the weight of the Earth's atmosphere is 441,000 billion x 10 = 4.41 million billion tons.
Now 26.7 billion (the weight in tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, see (A) above), divided by 4.41 million billion gives the fraction 6 /one million which means that the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels is equal to 6 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere by weight. (6 millionths)
-
Posted By: sonofluger @ 11/09/2009 1:41:18 PM
thus far has donated all proceeds to a non-profit. nice try. can you read? i imagine the skill is quite selective in individuals such as yourself
-
-
Posted By: sloweek @ 11/08/2009 3:59:12 PM
How many carbon credits to Gore cash in to get this propaganda printed?
I was impressed with Ms. Begely's ability to gloss over the whole 'bio-fuels' debacle. When faced with the inconvenient truth that bio-fuels were worse for the environment than gas, Gore still pushed through the legislation. How many rain forests and third world economies have been destroyed by the promise of billions of dollars for bio-fuels?
"So long and thanks for all the corn"
-
Posted By: excaliburgc @ 11/08/2009 11:17:07 AM
Turn another light on in your house,Take private. Do as I say not as I do.. Cash in on it collect millions. Scum
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 12:25:34 PM
Ok, so we get it that you right-wing/GOP/Conservative/Tea Partiers are non-believers of Global Climate Change.
But let me ask. What is your proposal against our energy dependence on Arab oil?
Forget for a while Global Climate Change if you wish. But if you are against renewable energy, what are you for?
a. Are you for continued poisoning of the environment that's resulting on deaths due to cancer and kids suffering from asthma attacks?
b. Are you for enriching Bush/Cheney's Texas oil cronies?
c. Are you for enriching Arab oil sheiks who incidentally fund Al Queda and Bin Ladin thence shooting and killing fellow Americans in Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.
d. Are you for our young American soldiers losing their lives guarding Iraqi oil interests on the pretense of establishing democracy in that God-forsaken country?-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 1:26:43 PM
Apolitical,
I'm with Sarah. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2009071302852.html.
And then of course their is Sarah's FaceBook page.
P.S. Global Warming is a hoax. Temperatures have been dropping for years.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 4:53:18 PM
donald,
How was I able to guess that one?
Do you happen to know her IQ score? I'll be interested since I had this observation that her followers would have IQs not any higher than hers. Except of course the outright crazies who also subscribe to her "Putin rears its ugly head" belief.
Have fun!-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/05/2009 5:10:00 PM
Apolitical,
I always have fun, Especially watching liberals run around as though their hair was on fire any time I mention Sarah's name. You people react like Pavlov's dogs.
P.S. I would imagine that Sarah's I.Q. is anywhere from 125 to 145.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 6:18:38 PM
donald,
You are right. We like Sarah too and already missed her since the campaign. We would even record her interviews and our whole bunch of friends had multiple OMGs and guffaws of laughter with her answers.
Really, 125 to 145. You must be getting your bogus math too from John Dough. That high with her kind of answers on her interviews. That fact she admitted she don't read. And that it took her 6 years in 6 colleges to finish a simple 4-year course. And how does her own campaign call her again? Ok, now I remember: Empty headed diva. My own high estimate is an IQ of 70 to 80.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/06/2009 6:19:14 AM
Apolitical,
Of course I am right, I usually am. Our Sarah is terrifying the White House. She keeps pointing out the folly of Obama's schemes on her FaceBook page. They don't know whether to spit or shine their shoes when it comes to Sarah.
Sarah is smart enough to use the new technology to bedevil the White House. She is also smarter than 99% of the Washington-Manhattan chattering class. She is also smart enough to take the White House away from the "Ditherer" in 2012.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/07/2009 2:23:17 AM
donald,
And yet too dumb to know that Africa is not a country but a continent.
Too dumb to know that there are other controversial Supreme Court decisions other than Roe vs Wade.
Wants to be the next administration after Bush and yet too dumb to know that about Bush Doctrine.
Too dumb to know that Afghanistan is not our next door neighbor.
Wanting to be the VP but too dumb to know what the VP role is.
Too dumb that she thought that the Vice President is in charge of the Senate.-
Posted By: donaldrex @ 11/08/2009 5:24:37 AM
Apolitical:donald,And yet too dumb to know that Africa is not a country but a continent.Too dumb to know that there are other controversial Supreme Court decisions other than Roe vs Wade.Wants to be the next administration after Bush and yet too dumb to know that about Bush Doctrine.Too dumb to know that Afghanistan is not our next door neighbor.Wanting to be the VP but too dumb to know what the VP role is.Too dumb that she thought that the Vice President is in charge of the Senate.-------------------------------------------------------------
1. False
2. False
3. Charlie Gibson who asked the question did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.
4. False
5. Sarah knew more about the V.P. role than Joe Biden. [V.P. candidates debate]
6. The V.P. is the president of the Senate, genius. Read the constitution. The V.P. is mentioned in both Article I and II of the Constitution.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 6:13:04 PM
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 8:16:19 PM
I saw an article where it was stated to be 126 anyway it is much higher then Kerry's Gore's Dodd's Frank's and a host other idiot democrats.
-
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 4:25:05 PM
John Dough,
You really have problems with your facts. Do you have problems researching your materials or do you just depend on your right-wing GOP supplied talking points.
First, there is no problem with additives in California gasoline. Ethanol is in fact alcohol. If it is bad water, then those who drink the food grade ethanol/alcohol would have died instead of having drunken fun.
Second. Gore???s house using 28 times energy had been snoped. His home had solar panels, rain-water collection system, geothermal heating and uses LED for lighting. It is rated second highest level in efficient energy usage by U.S. Green Building Council.
Third ??? Oh yeah, the infamous drill baby drill of the McCain-Palin campaign. You must be desperate in reviving this. No other GOP operative is still touting this since it is seen not to add significantly to the supply-demand equation. And of course the findings that the possible $0.10/gal impact on prices is not economically defensible way or worth the price to pay for environmental clean-up and offshore tourism.
When did Cuba again drilling in our own sea lanes in Florida and when did we start buying oil from them? And China too? This another one of your incredulous data. China can???t be selling to us because they have their own shortage and buying oil through their noses. Russia also? This is sweet. Have Russia solve their problem of their high cost of distribution?
Let me draw out a scheme for your very fertile imagination and bogus facts. Russia sells to Cuba at subsidized prices (Russia has the most expensive crude prices because of their distribution problems). Then Cuba sells to the U.S. these oil on dingy being used by illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Cuban officials are conspiring with the illegal immigrants to circumvent the fact that we have no trade relationship with Cuba. Now you understand how fact challenge your postings are.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:42:59 PM
Drilling will be done off America's coast soon enough. But thanks to a treaty signed by President Carter, the new oil and gas resources that will be discovered in the region will be discovered by Russia and Cuba to their economic benefit.
Normally, economic zones extend 200 miles off a country's coastline. In some cases, conflicts can arise based on resources and geography. In 1977, Carter signed a treaty with Cuba that essentially split the difference and created for the communist country an "exclusive economic zone" extending from the western tip of Cuba north virtually to Key West. Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Straits into 59 parcels and put them up for lease.
Foreign countries, including China and India, had acquired the rights to develop 16 of them.
"This is the irony of ironies," complained Charles Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while these two come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard."-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 6:59:48 PM
John Dough,
Looks like you had a Palinque syndrome with Russia/Cuba drilling in America. And you have the trustworthy, and I'm sure neutral on oil issues, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association as your source. To spice things up, there is of course the usual right-wing neo-con fear mongering that they are "virtually... (in) the Key West".
Can't you be at least less pathetic than this one?
I read about this and exploration you delusionally called near Key West are within Cuba's 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and there are yet vast sea of international waters separating our own EEZ before they can even be remotely called "near Key West".
Facts wrong. Numbers wrong. Geography wrong. What else lies you want to foment here?-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:07:56 PM
That quote is out of the news story and was not from the pertol assoc. The Cuban zone in well within our two hundred mile zone and they can drill right off key west these are not international waters
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 8:17:34 PM
Okay. Now I know what you mean. Florida is just 90 miles from Cuba. So, if Russia under Cuba's authority is drilling 60 miles from Key West, that will be well within Cuba's economic zone and, in fact, just 30 miles from Cuba coastline. So, why are you having problem with it?
So, they drill. Then we go developing renewables or alternative fuel through Obama's energy policy. I have no problem with that. I'm pretty sure we'll come out ahead in the long run.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 8:21:47 PM
Because they are tapping into our oil not Cuba's Carter handed the right s to Cuba to drill in our waters. He was the wrost president ever and Obama is right on his heels.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 8:26:57 PM
John,
You have your geography wrong again. Sixty (60) miles from Key West is within Cuba's territory or economic zone. That's 30 miles from Cuba's shoreline. Revisit your math. Tip of Key West is only 90 miles from Cuba. Therefore midway is only 45 miles and in international law you get 200 miles or midway between the shorelines of each country's land mass.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 9:34:54 PM
The U.S. Geological Survey recently estimated the North Cuban Basin contains as much as 9 billion barrels of oil and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Pools of oil and natural gas tend not to obey lines drawn on a map.
It is certain that at least some of Cuba's wells will tap oil pools that straddle the boundary separating our zone from Cuba's. In other words, Havana will get oil that should be ours.
The argument against Gulf drilling has been the potential for oil leaks and spoiled beaches.
Where are the environmentalists to protest this deal? Fact is, more oil bubbles up naturally from the sea floor than has ever leaked from oil platforms in the Gulf.
And those platforms are prime spots for tourist fishing, since they act as artificial reefs for sea life.
The oil and gas resources of the Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf could be fueling cars and heating homes in America, not those in Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi or Havana.
If Russia, Cuba and others can drill off the coast of Florida, why can't we?-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 9:53:10 PM
John,
"If Russia, Cuba and others can drill off the coast of Florida, why can't we?"
Why do we have to when its not our country's strategic direction? We are bound to adapt a policy away from polluting fossil fuel. So why do we have to put risk capital in a future we want to abandon eventually and would ran out in a few years. Why invest on something that have limited effect the price or supply-demand equation?-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 11:14:23 PM
But none of the technologies Obama seeks are of reality today to meet our needs you keep talking about independence but he is making us more dependent with his no drill, no nuclear, no coal policies. We still need energy now and the jury is still out if those sought efter technologies can ever even begin to meet our needs.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 1:25:24 AM
John,
You should get out of your little town in Texas sometime and see towns and cities running already in green energy. Or go to California sometime to see mountains and valley covered with wind mills from San Francisco to Palm Spring. Solar concentrator is Florida. Houses in New Mexico that are self-sufficient with electricity out of photovoltaic panels.
Ah ok. You are a right wing nut that got this "no we can't, no we don't, do nothing" in your mind set.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/07/2009 1:52:45 PM
Apolitical you ignorance is showing. Wind and solar power account for less than 3% of our current power on the grid. I have nothing against solar and wind power but they are not very cost efficient up front particularly for the amount of energy they produce. We still need fossil fuel and we still need to tap into our resources to make us less dependent on foreign oil. Nuclear power is the most efficient power system and does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. Solar power fields have to be enourmous to provide any real power and battery technology needs to improved dramatically to store power. By the way I don't live in Texas born raised and educated in the northeast where coommon sense is being replaced by nonsense. Texas is looking better and better.. .
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 9:29:21 PM
In 1977, Carter signed a treaty with Cuba that essentially split the difference and created for the communist country an "exclusive economic zone" extending from the western tip of Cuba north virtually to Key West. Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Straits into 59 parcels and put them up for lease. This lease extends well into the 45 mile seperation you describe They will be able to build platforms within 30 miles of key west. but we can't wow good deal for us. The damage the dems are doing to us economically is going to devastate our nation if they don't stop or get voted out of office.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 1:43:39 AM
John,
"My quotes are out of the news and Carter's giveaway is within our two hundred mile zone area."
I have to be very frank with you here as lying and spewing bogus number is becoming a habit to you.
Your source on Russia-Cuban drilling is Republicans Resources Committee. In fact, your posts are direct cut-and-paste from their website. Just like Fox, its totally dishonesty on your part that you represent them as "news".
And there is no such 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone between Florida and Cuba when there are only 90 miles that separate our shoreline with them. With your display of ignorance, I'm beginning to think that you thought the U.S. 200 miles EEZ extends to Cuban soil and therefore all their drilling, to quote your post again, "...is our oil...".
Now I'm totally offended that you thought of me as a fool and you've wasted my time with bogus numbers, made up facts, total lies, lying about your sources and cutting-and-pasting Republican propaganda talking points.
You are not worthy of anymore response.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/06/2009 7:41:10 AM
That came right out of a news story and as far as the two hundred you were the one who wrote that there was more than two hundred miles between Cuba and the US and mentioned that Cuba was well inside their zonea and that there was international waters between our two zones and I am a liar. I have put my sources right in my posts I assume yours are from the DNC talking heads. I never said it was oour oil but the oil near Key West is and obviously when they start to drill ooil and natural gas from our zone surely will flow into their wells and essentially they will getting our oul without any compensation for us. By the way we buy some oil from Russia and we will be getting some from China in the near future too since they will have a well on our doorstep.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:14:18 PM
Cite your source is it Bob Graham the talking head for the dem party from Florida. My quotes are out of the news and Carter's giveaway is within our two hundred mile zone area
The Russians are coming ??? for Cuba???s oil
by Stuart Hampton, August 25th, 2009, Tuesday.
Category: Energy & Utilities, In the News
As a conscious 11-year old during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the idea that someday Russia might be allowed to drill for oil 45 to 90 miles from Florida seemed unthinkable. But in the post Cold War world, it is not only thinkable, it is actually happening. In late July Cuba and Russia and inked a deal to allow them to jointly search for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. In return, Russia granted Cuba $150 million in credit for farm machinery and construction materials that were sent to Cuba last year to help in areas damaged by three recent devastating hurricanes.
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:23:44 PM
MTBE was finally replaced with ethanol eliminating Clinton and the environmentalists poisonous additive
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 7:08:37 PM
John Dough,
See! Your data is not only wrong. It's dated.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:48:30 PM
Clean up costs for MTBE will be between 25 and 33 billion dollars and nationally could cost up to 85 billion. This additib
ve should not have ever been put in gas but Clinton and the dems did it before GOP got congress and for a decade it poisoned ground water especially in Calif. where it was used extensively.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 11:06:28 PM
Source American water works association
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:20:05 PM
But MTBE Poisoned ground water in California and it is not dissapating it is still in alot of ground water dated or not the environmetal wack's in their zest and zeal to reduce air pollution poisoned the sarea ground water because they acted hastily. Kinfd of like the dems now ram it all through before we lose congress to hell with the ramifications.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 8:29:48 PM
John,
So explain to me, how is this related to Obama's new initiative of energy independence.
Are you running out of issue to throw around that you are pulling non-issues out of your behind?-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 9:18:24 PM
So waht is Obama's policy wind and solar ok that is 30 to 50 years away if they willo ever be able meet our needs.
We can't drill for oil off of Florida, Califoornai, no more platforms in the Golf, no to ANWAR, no nuclear power plants no more coal fired plants, no propane or natural gas vehicles. Cap n Trade forced ratoioning by making energy too expensive especially for the poor. It is a massive tax increase Obama estimates 650 billion in new taxes by cap n trade in just ten years. His policy appears to be to make us 100% dependent on foreign until until wind and solar power come thru in the meantime he will make us pay thru the teeth for energy. Scientists both pro and con agree that cap n trade will reduce the years temp. only 7/100's of a degree by 2050 and that is proovided everyone plays by the rules which they currently are not. Trillions innew taxes to reduce the global temp .07 degrees over 40 years wow what a plan. ,-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 10:00:15 PM
John,
You obviously not read the draft proposal. It's indigenous technology wind, solar, photovoltaic cells, biomass, thermal, geothermal. Even natural gas, nuclear, coal and shale are not ruled out as long as it can show its not polluting, safe and not an environmental hazard.
I have no comment on your numbers. After you multiple bogus math, I don't think I want to waste anymore bandwidth on them.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 11:00:46 PM
To Apolitical Cap and Trade is not a tax hmm... better look at your savior's budget:
Bloomberg News reported on March 12 that the budget that President Obama proposed in February anticipated revenues of almost $650 billion by 2019 from a cap-and-trade program. The president's proposal would require companies to buy government-issued permits to release carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. One of the best explanations of the economic realities of cap and trade, written by Patrick Semmens, was posted on the Ron Paul blog on March 9. It is entitled: "'Cap and Trade' Is Really Just a Massive Tax." As the writer explains: "Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating." -
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 10:40:11 PM
Cite an example of bogus math all my numbers are from scientific or government numbers or news stories you keep referencing 20% to 200% tax increase to me I'm not sure what you are talking about there. So what makes your sources numbers betterbecause they are from democrats that is encouraging NOT
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 10:36:57 PM
None of those proposals can meet our current needs we need fossil fuels biofuels by the way create more CO2 then fossil fuels you may want to read upo on that. Like I saif before I support solar and wind power but they are decades away to begin to even contribute to our needs. Get realistic
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 10:34:25 PM
Obama's tax dollar number is alreqady in his budget projections if the math is fuzzy it is his math not mine. Cap and Tax will generat 650 billion in new taxes by 2019 Obama numbers not mine.
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 9:07:45 PM
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:55:46 PM
Waitning for your apology oor are you gooing to assert my facts are wrong we will be buying gas and oil from China that is from our east coast. I would much rahter have our companies drilling then theirs what do you think they will do if they have a mmajor spill. Nothing we will clean it up you dems make me sick
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 10:03:07 PM
John,
You want me to apologize for your own bogus numbers?
Assuming that you are half right that we are buying oil from China which I find ridiculous since they are net user not exporter, what's would be wrong with that? We've been buying everything from soap to soup from them. Bush did not see anything wrong being dependent on China for loans and credits.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 10:55:18 PM
Im no Bush supporter he was a democrat in GOP clothing Clinton was the one who got us started with China giving them 50 years of computer technology in one stroke of his pen. This of course had nothing to do with the millions the chinese government then gave to the dems which they supposedly gave back Yeah Right
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:31:03 PM
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore???s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore???s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite ???energy-efficient??? home renovations
NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President???s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
???A man???s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,??? said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. ???Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.???
In the past year, Gore???s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore???s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore???s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home???s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the ???green??? overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month ???1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations ??? at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 7:08:00 PM
John Dough,
Give me a break. Your source's website is obviously a right-wing propaganda arm masquerading as academic "think thank".
Just he home page will tell you, it's a GOP, conservative and right wing propaganda arm.
Numbers wrong. Logic wrong. Geography wrong. Sources dubious.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:33:06 PM
If you read the article this is the same org. that outed him the first time and he scurried to get hoiis home more "energy efficeint" and the result is he is using more, private jet instead of commercial air, limos instead of taixs or the subway yeah he is a concerned environmentalist. Imagine what you would say if this was Bush instead of Gore. HYPOCRITES!!!!!
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:23:00 PM
Who is your source Gore or the dem party get real it is right there in black and white GORE is a hypocrit and if it is not right why hasn't that moron presented his bills to disprove it then. Interesting question
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 7:21:23 PM
The source was the power company you are such a boobblehead to bad Gore wasn't the Pied Piper we could get rid of most of you.
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:40:40 PM
Two Russian nuclear attack submarines have taken up positions along our East Coast in recent days, another sign of renewed assertiveness by the former communist giant. The move comes as Moscow inks a deal with the communist relic of Cuba to drill for oil we refuse to go after.
The submarines are of the Akula class, a counterpart to the Los Angeles class attack subs of the U.S. Navy. "I don't think they've put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years," said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and submarine warfare expert.
The subs' appearance may be more symbolic than a real threat. More interesting, perhaps, are the four contracts Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin signed in Havana during his recent visit there.
They allow Russia's Zarubezhneft oil concern to work with the Cubanpetroleo monopoly to explore and develop the oil riches of the North Cuban Basin off Florida.
Havana imports more than half its oil, mostly at a subsidized price from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Cuba's domestic output is exclusively heavy oil with a high sulfur content. Its offshore Gulf waters could contain large quantities of lighter, sweet crude.
Drilling will be done off America's coast soon enough. But thanks to a treaty signed by President Carter, the new oil and gas resources that will be discovered in the region will be discovered by Russia and Cuba to their economic benefit. -
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 6:38:20 PM
Since wind and solar power are decades away to even begin to supply our needs yes we should drilll and use our resources. I haveno problem with solar and wind power but we will be backk in wigwam's and mud huts following wind and solar power at this point. We need too use all resources available and there is enoough natural gas to power oour cars and homes right here. Nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient power resoource available but the dems won't allow them. They are the party of obstruction and power abuse putting their beliefs ahead of ours it is time to send them packing.
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 2:52:31 PM
Apolitical
Well for your A. you have heard of converting Hydrogen to fuel? Using solar energy and splitting CO2 and converting it to fuel has been around allot longer and also produces a usable CO, normally produced from Natural Gas and is an important industrial chemical. Then they are also using allergy to convert it to fuel this is just a few of the ways that are being looked at to use CO2.
For your B. Obama wants to do a whole lot more to destroy a functioning industry than Cap and Trade. He wants to raise our federal fuel tax at the pump 20-200%. Also wants to remove all the Federal tax breaks of the Oil industry. Sounds good I bet? If Obama does expect around 5-8 dollars a gallon at the pump, also mostly shutting down production in the US being that production is not cost effective; leaving us even more reliant on foreign oil
For your C; see B
For your D; yes Oil is a factor on why we are in Iraq but Saddam Hussein causing sever Regional problems over the course of his Regime is another factor. He had accounted for the loss of 2,000,000,000 lives before finally being shut down this would be reason enough even with out the oil. As for the rest of the reasons I could take pages to explain the battle within the Muslim Religion if you have knowledge of all the other religion believes of old you know they are with violent teaching. Imagine if we also decided to follow the teachings of old to the letter. Also those wanting to wipe out the Jewish people didn't start up until a hundred years or so ago and then comes Hitler and The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri and those two bozos make the battle between the Sunni and Shiite like a Sunday afternoon stroll. Then you also need to know about the difference between Madhhab law and The are various Shia theological beliefs, schools of jurisprudence, philosophical beliefs, and spiritual movements. Shia Islam embodies a completely independent system of religious interpretation and political authority in the Muslim world.
(Last two sentances cut and paste from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam)
Then If you want to understand Afghanistan a little add in Pakistan and their use of the Taliban. Then hopefully you know about the huge untapped Copper reserve and the players attempting control. Do you know why the Al-Qaeda decide to make their camp where they did and what the Russians where drilling all the teat holes for in the same place?-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 4:40:34 PM
earth,
I thought your reading made you a less stupid somewhat.
Ok, defend your thesis like a man.
Why would you want to keep subsidizing the oil industry with their obscene profits. If you want to see how profitable they are, look it at yourself the top Fortune 500 companies.
If oil raise prices to 5-8 dollars because of the excuse that they lost government subsidy, then they will in fact be gouging you, don't you think, because they don't want to reduce their profits somehow. By the way, are you for government subsidizing profitable industries also? Are you not yet content that we are sacrificing the lives of our soldiers to protect their crude sources in the Middle East? You much more blood you want to donate to these oil profits? And next time, you want to do that and more, you maybe send your own son or daughter.
As to your D. Saddam, until US stepped in, was the problem of 28 million Iraqis cowards who don't have the guts as a people to free themselves of corruption, abuses and mass murder. Why is my son and my money need to be spent freeing this sorry country of a dictator they are too afraid to do themselves? Apparently, Bush and Cheney, thought so because none of their sons or daughters will be on harms way.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 5:35:27 PM
Snap! added taxes, The Oil Industry just like any industry has costs, investors to pay... then the breaks they are given are passed to the consumer; the differance in cost at the pump. Then add in Obama's fed tax increase of 20 To 200% on the National avg. of what around $0.47 per gallon, lets see simpleton math at this point; does it excape you?
Also if you think I agree with our lose of life your the biggest fool that ever was, I would just assume to nuke-em and be done with it; yet Genocide is wrong for any reason! (amazing I am a little Liberal after all!)-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 6:24:35 PM
earth,
Wow, you sure is a good student of John Dough's bogus math. Tax rate of between 20 to 200%. Amazing, wide range of guess. That's like shooting at the side of the barn if only you are not just imagining it.
But ok, misspellings notwithstanding, I got the gist of your answer. You are against health care as government freebie for the poor and the middle class and yet in favor of corporate welfare for the oil industry.
What a hypocrite! Don't worry, I'm not shocked anymore and you are not unusual. There are many of you in the GOP, conservative, libertarian, tea partiers, ditto heads, right wing nuts groups.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 6:37:46 PM
Apolitical;
Also about your Iraq people, why also is everyone else???s money is required to pay for someone else to benefit the ones who were too stupid to get a paid for education avoid aids, drugs, alcohol, obesity... and cannot get insurance.
You're for Obama the Democrats and their programs? How is any other person on the planet not as good as you? Loser! :-)
You just don't get it we just saw the effects of 5-6 dollars a gallon for fuel I really enjoyed paying $5 for a dollar loaf of bread. Then you are also to ignorant to understand we are getting really close to escaping Arab oil; they have been working towards the goal for years. Obama and the Democrats want to make us more dependant remove the breaks to the oil industry it becomes to costly to drill at home.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 6:50:17 PM
Oops forgot Obama???s gas and Desial tax (Fuel Tax) which has already passed the House;
CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION; A $3.6 TRILLION GAS TAX
http://hutchison.senate.gov/resources/HutchisonBondGasTaxReport.pdf
Well golly gee for no new taxes I'm thinking the dip rods are out doing them selves!! HaHa!-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 7:05:53 PM
Apolitical;
Also for my 20 to 200% the bill is not finalized yet, so it is still best guess!
Bubblehead wasn???t a really good definition; speed bump is the better quantifier! :-)!-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 7:39:20 PM
Apolitical;
Oh this just keeps getting better! :-)!
"Focus. Just focus dude." you have no idea how much of a joke you are, do you?
So speed bump let me understand this you think the oil companies make billions of dollars and just put it in their pockets? Have you ever even owned a business? I imagine not it so now imagine having investors to pay, a simple the oil rig can go for 50 million, Then if you want to do any of the specialty extractions 100 million+. They also have to rebuild the rigs constantly they beat the crap out of them real expensive. The labor and support equipment transportation... are all also really expensive. They do not make as much as you think, duh!
If it un-profitable to drill they stop, then we get foreign oil.
Renewable energy is way more expensive then fossil it is why they are bringing up the costs to make them affordable. Mind you I am for getting rid of fossil fuel but starting from the middle of the middle class below, in a bad economy where people are struggling to get a job? then figure in the added costs of Cap-n-trade, health care... are you just plain stupid "speed bump"? No wait MSNBC Pupp-pet! :-)!
By the way do you think even for a second the business owners are not just going to pass down all the addtional cost? they pay first but everyone else really pays the addtional taxes, HaHa Dude!!!-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 8:02:25 PM
dang you are right, I need to slow down while typing again; making so many mistakes! sheepish oops!
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 10:08:25 PM
Earth,
Yeah you are. I have a simple premise where you seem to disagree on giving poor and the middle class subsidized government health care that may save their lives and yet you agree on providing corporate welfare to give more profits to already obscenely profitable oil companies.
You have not addressed it and you're all over the place with your dizzying confused posts.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/06/2009 9:00:13 AM
Apolitical;
Your right I do not agree with giving subsidized health care to the poor and middle class; the 17% who do not have Health Care. You see we already do subsidize their Health by the Governments use of our tax dollar; why would I want to be charged on top of that? Oh I bet you think because the poor Government operates in a deficit, yes?
Let me understand; keeping this simple for you, the oil companies are functioning businesses and operate within their means, and the Government is broke. Now we need to subsidize the Government because they cannot even manage themselves? I could easily cut/save trillions out of just the Senate and House and support structure spending, talk about executives being paid too much! As for your "welfare for the oil companies" we don't give them anything, just cut the taxes not taking as much from thier bottom line. Their savings are passed onto the consumer by not having to take a profit after the cost of taxes.
You say, "give more profits to already obscenely profitable oil companies."
Well you're right in a way when oil prices are up the oil companies do make more, when down less but still not make as much as you think!! Also you are for having Obama destroy a functioning industry to raise costs and make solar affordable? What about all the poor and middle class who will not be able to afford their energy costs, food and necessities? What is that; no problem the have health care? Or the fact they are also going to be paying for health care anyways, though higher cost of products and solar for higher Fuel and Utilities cost; so much for subsidized health care and solar! :-)!
As for your; "all over the place with your dizzying confused posts."
I've just been answering your questions and statements as short as poss, which I find you either deny you made or have forgotten you had! :-)!
From Forbes Magazine, this was/is a great Article;
Shooting Ourselves in the Foot
According to Ernst & Young, from 1992 to 2006 the U.S. oil industry spent $1.25 trillion on long-term investment vs. profits of $900 billion. Truth is, oil industry profits are in line with the rest of American industry. In 2007, a record year, they earned 8.3 cents per dollar of sales. Beverage companies and cigarette makers, by contrast, earned 19.1 cents. Drugmakers, 18.4 cents. Indeed, all manufacturers, 8.9 cents on average, made more than "Big Oil."
Oil companies don't really pay "windfall profit" taxes, anyway. You do...
Investor's Business Daily
Forbes Magazine dated June 02, 2008
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0602/030.html-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 12:53:37 PM
earth,
Do you bother to research before you reply?
Oil industry effective federal income tax, net of tax credits, etc., is 11% against non-oil industry average of 18%. If that's not called subsidy, I don't know what is. And that's because they get tax breaks for exploration, construction, low interest loans, etc.
"Savings passed on the consumer..." You must be dreaming -- and blind. Did you not notice that when prices of crude increased in the world market, pump prices jumped instantaneously thereby giving oil companies windfall profit out of inventories purchased at old low prices? And when price go down, it takes them forever like a proverbial tar in the pavement to move to lower their pump prices.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/06/2009 2:58:51 PM
Apolitical;
Here you go again first you make a statement;
"and yet you agree on providing corporate welfare to give more profits to already obscenely profitable oil companies."
Then you ignore your statement, do you even know the difference between welfare and a subsidy? I merely answer your ignorance, and lack of knowledge then read your bizarre retort.
So now you want to call it a subsidy, no really? ya think? duh! We have been subsidizing the Oil Industry for years and that is what Obama wants to remove! So since you have no idea of the difference between welfare and a subsidy I understand your latest post even better. This is like talking to a brick; do you even understand the simplest of Economic models, Cost vs Price, how about supply and demand? How about the difference in production costs from on industry to another you think they all have the same costs?
So this next part is as simple as I can make it;
Now you rant about the prices at the pump and the savings not being passed on, oh boy - do you understand most station owners only make pennies from their pumps? The bulk is made inside automotive work, pop, cigs, candy... And their next fuel purchase is going to cost X more because oil being like say gold has a floating price; be it in the ground or sitting around somewhere for days, months, years. Then difference between oil and gold is the stored oil reserve is exhausted that was purchased at the higher price at some point and the cost at the pump comes back down.
You also compare the difference in costs of production and purchasing of produced oil from foreign sources. Do you even know we get the most oil from Canada that's 2,007 thousands barrels a day which they produce from oil sands which is a more expensive type of crude oil production and not afforable when oil prices are low? Ok speed bump, no I mean Brick, no Pupp-pet, no Bubblehead, anyways try sounding a little less ignorant next time, K? :-)! No wonder you believe MSNBC! :-)!-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/06/2009 3:24:06 PM
earth,
I hate to say this but you are a bigger idiot than I first thought.
First, you don't know that welfare and subsidy is one and the same as its money coming from the government as help or supposedly assistance.
Second, you mistook the oil industry as those operating the neigbourhood gas stations. Those owners are the same middle class and small businessmen as you and me and likewise under the mercy of Big Oil. The oil industry are the likes of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Qatar Petroleum, CNOOC of China, Saudi Aramco, Exxon, Shell, Mobil, Citgo, BP, etc.
Cigarettes and candies! Canada extracting oil from sand. So what! Oil and gold are exhausted. What are you talking about? What a jerk!
Geez, I thought Rush, Beck and Palin are the dumbest in your ranks. You just set the new low.
I say this again. Research and read before you open your big dumb mouth.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/06/2009 4:28:54 PM
Apolitical;
HaHa ok brick;
So now welfare and a subsidy are the same thing, huh? Nothing like have to defend ignorance, :-)! So keeping it simple for you Welfare - to give to the poor and needy something they do not have; Subsidy the simplest is to give a finicial break making a product affordable within a given market, moron :-)!
Now for the rest, Huh? Calm down son re-read or even read what I post before you answer not makes crap up! :-)! Answer to the context not your pick and choose out of context try to cover your own ignorance; if you are capable anyways! :-)!
First you say;
"Savings passed on the consumer..." You must be dreaming -- and blind. Did you not notice that when prices of crude increased in the world market, pump prices jumped instantaneously thereby giving oil companies windfall profit out of inventories purchased at old low prices?
So now you say;
"Second, you mistook the oil industry as those operating the neigbourhood gas stations. Those owners are the same middle class and small"
Make up your mind brick! :-)! Yet you did leave me no question, as too my question from my previous post;
"This is like talking to a brick; do you even understand the simplest of Economic models, Cost vs Price, how about supply and demand? How about the difference in production costs from one industry to another; you think they all have the same costs?"
"Oil and gold are exhausted." What? HuH? Zoom and it lands earth to Apolitical; are your saying am I to take this as a statement of yours, please do elaborate?
"I say this again. Research and read before you open your big dumb mouth."
HaHa! must really suck being you so full of your self and knowing nothing of what you think you know! HaHa!-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/07/2009 2:05:52 AM
earth,
Why don't you calm down and comeback again when you can already compose a slightly coherent paragraph?-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/07/2009 2:12:58 AM
earth,
And while you're reviewing your elementary grammar and composition, you might want to research the topic about "corporate welfare" then you'll see it's almost the same definition and the same government money as "social welfare".
Also, gas stations are owned by small businessmen -- rarely by the big oil companies. Get a confirmation of this the next time you gas up.
Glad to help get you educated.-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/07/2009 9:12:23 AM
Apolitical;
HaHa! well how sweet of you, Gore is a buffoon and you talk about my grammer; ohh poor thing did a little light get in? Still on about the gas stations and your Corp. welfare; it's ok no one expects much from you anyways and haven't in quite a while so keep blithering, :-)!
Oh also For your statement "Oil and gold are exhausted." I decided to re-post this, :-)!
For unconventional oil or crude bitumen; oil sands (tar sands) just in the Canadian and Venezuelan deposits contain about 3.6 trillion barrels then world wide oil shale is estimated from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels.
The studies I included below are only those Oil and Natural Gas resources believed to be recoverable using existing technology and only in Alaska and one region of the United States.
Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in Selected Rocky Mountain Provinces for the Energy
"Survey estimated a mean of 183 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas, a mean of 2,350 million barrels of undiscovered oil, and a mean of 3,160 million barrels of undiscovered natural gas liquids in six provinces for EPCA 2000."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-149-02/fs-149-02.pdf
"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources in all areas north of the Arctic Circle. Using a geology-based probabilistic methodology, the USGS estimated the occurrence of undiscovered oil and gas in 33 geologic provinces thought to be prospective for petroleum. The sum of the mean estimates for each province indicates that 90 billion barrels of oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to be found in the Arctic, of which approximately 84 percent is expected to occur in offshore areas.
http://geology.com/usgs/arctic-oil-and-gas-report.shtml"
For Gold reserves estimated and known just in Africa. Gold producers, just like oil producers cut back production to raise the prices;
Congo;
Namoya to Twangiza, 5.4 million oz's of Gold
South Kivu and Maniemu Provinces in east-central DRC, 8 million oz's of Gold
Tanzania - 36 million oz's of Gold
Madagascar - 70 metric ton's of gold
South Africa;
40,000 metric ton's of gold
http://www.magnusresources.com/africa_other_countries.htm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 7:13:15 PM
earth,
Huh!!!
What the heck are you talking about?
Focus. Just focus dude.
If Obama is encouraging renewables to displace oil, then he can't be encouraging dependence on oil. Is that not simple enough for you?-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 8:29:43 PM
just seeing if I can push your post back up it dropped way down out of context
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/06/2009 10:29:03 AM
k
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 3:05:29 PM
Apolitical;
I forgot to add if you get though all of the above post then do open minded research for yourself you will understand something else. It is not "if" they decide a Nuclear weapon is the Hand of God but "how long before".
Also I admire the Muslim Religion they just have some major problems just like everyone else when it comes to Religion. They just handle these problems in the oldest most barbaric ways.
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 11:57:02 AM
Member Comments
Reply Report Abuse Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 11:44:02 AM
John Dough,
Where are you getting these gutter trash, bogus math and outright lies? It's not even remotely logical.
"Greenhouse gases created by humans are estimated to double under Cap and Trade since emerging economies will not have to comply."
How can a wind farm or photovoltaic cells generate more greenhouse gases than burning oil?
Emerging economies which by the way include China and India do not have to comply with Cap and Trade nor do any other emerginig economies. Since their factories are not nearly as modern as ours they will dump more greehouse gases into the atmosphere as their economies grow and estimates are Cap and Trade unless universal will actually double the amount of greenhouse gases as a result.-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 12:08:02 PM
John Dough,
Nice try. When called out with your lies and bogus math, you report me for Posting Abuse. That was low man. Why don't you just man up and admit you lied and made up your numbers?
And since you are not keeping with the news, China has its own program of global leadership in renewable energy. If your GOP friends keeps on erecting roadblocks and saying NO, they might well be ahead of us. And if you have enough courage to climb to windmill towers, you might see a Made in China or Made in India labels.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/07/2009 1:58:21 PM
China and India are building coal power plants at break neck speed despite their other programs.
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 3:22:50 PM
I never reported you for abuse sorry never have never will I got a strong backbone and a lot of intestinal fortitude as for climbing the windwills only an idiot would try that like climbing a high voltage tower. Of course they are made in China and India the dems are driving businesses and companies out of America with their tax policies. Pretty soon we will be a banana republic and we will be sneaking in Mexico for jobs.
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 1:03:16 PM
Apolitical;
Is that what a report abuse looks like? Looks more like a cut and paste of the buttons, your name and post date?
-
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/07/2009 9:37:45 AM
Apolitical;
Gore is a buffoon his data was all wrong carbon follows temperature and dust seems to be the on of the precursor to higher temperature. This is also some of the information 3,200+ ???scientists??? have been using to discredit Gore???s 51 year sampling. Lets see Gore???s 51 years or 4,000,000 years which is the more accurate sampling, hmmm? I do agree we have to do something about mans pollution just not using Gore???s hog wash! Cap and Trade is a joke and does not address man???s un-natural pollutants the Earth???s natural Carbon output is not as high as even roughly 325,000 years ago!
From wikipedia.org;
Graph of CO2 (Green graph), temperature (Blue graph), and dust concentration (Red graph) measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core as reported by Petit et al., 1999. Higher dust levels are believed to be caused by cold, dry periods.
(you can see the graph here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core since it most likely won???t post)
From (www.ncdc.noaa.gov)
In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 thousand years." (You can download just the Vostok ice core data here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html)
I'm not sure if a graph will post to so it may not be below; us being able to post pictures and graphs would really spruce up, Newsweek!-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/07/2009 11:19:38 AM
Cut this sentence out of the article below so you would not miss it!!
"Methane is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As a result, efforts to prevent or utilize methane emissions can provide significant energy, economic and environmental benefits"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities (cows moooo! :-)! coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.
Methane is also a primary constituent of natural gas and an important energy source. As a result, efforts to prevent or utilize methane emissions can provide significant energy, economic and environmental benefits. In the United States, many companies are working with EPA in voluntary efforts to reduce emissions by implementing cost-effective management methods and technologies.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
EPA - Sources and Emissions of Methane
more than 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities
The top three major sources for Methane production in 2007 U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO2 Equivalents)
Enteric Fermentation at 139.0
Land Fills at 132.9 - this is 34 percent of all Methane emissions
Natural Gas Systems 104.7
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
Imagine that Land fills produce 34% of mans Methane production which is 20 times as dense as CO2 and yet we only recycle what 33 or 34% of our waste; me thinks some-din may be wrong?-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/07/2009 12:02:46 PM
Global Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship
"Methane (CH4) is one of the primary greenhouse gases found in the Earth's atmosphere. It is the principal component of natural gas and often serves as an energy source in homes, cars, and power plants. Methane is produced by the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. This process is known as anaerobic decomposition. Examples of where this occurs are rice production, wetlands, manure lagoons, and in the digestive process of ruminant animals (Cows Moooo! :-)!
http://www.epa.gov/methane/pdfs/ffa.pdf
Components of our Atmosphere
Nitrogen ??? 78%
Oxegen - 21%
Other gases - 1% Hydrogen, Helium, Argon, Neon, Greenhouse gases, Non-greenhouse gases
So if Other Gases in our Atmosphere are only 1% which also includes the largest Greenhouse gas of water vapor at 95% of the 1%. This leaves 5% of the 1% for man and Earth to produce Carbon and Methane Gore's a Buffoon!!-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/07/2009 12:20:14 PM
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless gas that is a by-product of the combustion of organic matter. It makes up less than 0.04 percent of Earth's atmosphere or;
375 ppm
and Methane is 20 times as dense and Methane from the top three sources equals;
375 ppm so multiplied by 20 = 7,500 ppm when it converts to Carbon (if it is a one to one conversion.)
I would think yes we have a problem, first is they cannot tax Methane like they can Carbon; but taxing Carbon does very little if nothing to control Methane.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/06/2009 6:01:45 PM
Apolitical;
For your statement "Oil and gold are exhausted."
For unconventional oil or crude bitumen; oil sands (tar sands) just in the Canadian and Venezuelan deposits contain about 3.6 trillion barrels then world wide oil shale is estimated from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels.
The studies I included below are only those Oil and Natural Gas resources believed to be recoverable using existing technology and only in Alaska and one region of the United States.
Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in Selected Rocky Mountain Provinces for the Energy
"Survey estimated a mean of 183 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas, a mean of 2,350 million barrels of undiscovered oil, and a mean of 3,160 million barrels of undiscovered natural gas liquids in six provinces for EPCA 2000."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-149-02/fs-149-02.pdf
"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources in all areas north of the Arctic Circle. Using a geology-based probabilistic methodology, the USGS estimated the occurrence of undiscovered oil and gas in 33 geologic provinces thought to be prospective for petroleum. The sum of the mean estimates for each province indicates that 90 billion barrels of oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids may remain to be found in the Arctic, of which approximately 84 percent is expected to occur in offshore areas.
http://geology.com/usgs/arctic-oil-and-gas-report.shtml"
For Gold reserves estimated and known just in Africa. Gold producers, just like oil producers cut back production to raise the prices;
Congo;
Namoya to Twangiza, 5.4 million oz's of Gold
South Kivu and Maniemu Provinces in east-central DRC, 8 million oz's of Gold
Tanzania - 36 million oz's of Gold
Madagascar - 70 metric ton's of gold
South Africa;
40,000 metric ton's of gold
http://www.magnusresources.com/africa_other_countries.htm
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 8:18:54 PM
Apolitical must of got tired of getting his butt kicked GOOD NIGHT!!!
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 8:21:04 PM
John,
Not really. I'm just tired of reading your lies, bogus stats and recycled GOP/Tea partiers' talking points.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 8:23:30 PM
Well since I have countered every thign you said was a lie I'm still waiting for your sources especially on Gore
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 10:11:22 PM
John,
You probably missed it. It's in Snope.
Sorry, I don't provide Google services.
Try to keep up. Tip. Do your reading and not borrowing opinions by listening to Rush, Beck and Hannity.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 11:42:42 PM
I never listen to Rush watch Hannity and Beck sometimes I assume you are the guy who watches Air America that is subsidized by the govt. to stay on the air that is a crime in itself
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 8:39:52 PM
MSNBC doesn't supply sources, you can't support bull hockey!!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 3:37:55 PM
Apolitical read read and read some more Cap and Trade is a bust the Euro countries that are participating have seen no reduction in carbon emissions and yes newly industrialized nations do nto have to play the game so they can pollute with no restrictions and as they build more factories with no emission controls guess what greenhouse gas rates are going to climb. I don't remember the scientific publication name I read wher ethey estimate it will double but I will find it. In addition in Cap and Trade is fully implemented and no laws are broken as they currently are being (see 10 reasons to oppose cap and traqde) it will only reduce carbon output .07% by 2050 yet it will tax citiizens trillions of dollars over that time. Seems like a worthwhile investment for a 7/100's of 1% reduction wow sounds like a dem program!!!! Oh it is
Where are you getting these gutter trash, bogus math and outright lies? It's not even remotely logical.
"Greenhouse gases created by humans are estimated to double under Cap and Trade since emerging economies will not have to comply."-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 3:58:35 PM
John Dough;
What may be confusing Apolitical is the difference between separating the largest Green house gas of water vapor and Gore including water vapor in his Carbon numbers? Maybe if he understood with out water vapor it would leave your 1% of human production of Carbon? Then my including other human pollutants in my 3-5% of human production of Green house gases may not be helping?-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 4:02:12 PM
He only needs to read to understand the difference but he is a Gore bobblehead apparently and will blidnly follow the deomcratic montra to oblivion.
-
Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/05/2009 4:55:47 PM
John Dough - Are you now blaming me for your own postings of lies and bogus numbers?
-
Posted By: John Dough @ 11/05/2009 10:59:03 PM
Read the Cambridge study on Global Warming my numbers come out of that.
-
-
Posted By: earthorbitsthesun @ 11/05/2009 4:18:20 PM
Bobblehead! :-)! so wrong, but funny he will never give in now way too much ego! :-)!
-
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
-
- The House Passes Landmark Health Care Reform
- Salkever's Valley: Marc Benioff's Personal Touch at Salesforce.com
- Investors Should Give the Recovery Some Respect -- but Watch for Rising Rates
- The Secret Service Is Investigating a Conservative's Obama Assassination Tweets
- Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words
-
- Viral Video: Stewart Does Beck. Really, He Does.
- The FCC's National Broadband Paper Plan Gets a BoomTown Tour of the Nation's Capital!
- Another One Bites the Dust at Yahoo: Chief Technologist Sam Pullara Departs for Benchmark
- Viacom's YouTube Strategy: Replay "The Godfather"
- The Real Victims of the Newspaper Collapse
- You guys thought he, like, carried arugula in his pocket to snack on Gibbs on Obama’s diet NYT
- It felt like the earth had split open Juan Martinez, of Tubul, Chile, on the Feb 27 quake NYT
- She kind of cleaned the place out Ben Russo on Palin and entourage at a gifting suite AOL
- I placed the receiver in its cradle and wept Rove on finding out he wouldn't be indicted NYT
- Everything there is to say about health care has been said ObamaAP
Discuss