This has got to be the most biased headline I've ever seen

All Congress has to do is sweep away the road blocks to building new refineries (last new one was over 30 years ago) ok the drilling for oil here and off-shore (the Chinese have a deal with Cuba to explore off-shore there) and cut the stupid 55 designer blends of gas (required by enviro weinies) to three and as soon as the word gets out - hell, even before the first engineer takes a trip to a site - the gas price would go down. Why, cause they rest of the oil market would know we're serious about taking care of PEOPLE first and the wide spread panic would fizzle out. Granted it would take time, far less if the friggin government would get the hell out of the way and let private industry take charge.



For all the folks that think the oil companies are getting rich and the owners are "loaded" I say good job liberal media. You don't know the difference between a profit and profit margin, BTW - who owns the oil companies? Mostly us, that's right, got a 401K? Most investment firms (mine included) have tons of shares in oil stock, so you and I are part of the evil rich that the socialism at any price crowd wants to punish for being successful.



Feel funny now? Want to learn more? Stop listening the lame stream media and start reading some libertarian stuff - I read Neal Boortz web every day, and it's opened my eyes.



Winston Churchill said if you're not a liberal by the time you're twenty - you don't have a heart, and if you're not a conservative by the time you're thirty - you don't have a brain.
 
bilde




The next level in top-flight luxury - The National Newspaper
 
JuneBug said:
All Congress has to do is sweep away the road blocks to building new refineries (last new one was over 30 years ago) .
Click to expand...



I read an article which stated the reason no new refineries have been made in the last 30 years is because congress saw that the refineries of that day expelled loads of pollution in the refining process. So they passed and act (or probably a series of acts) which made regulations for any new refineries made had to comply with very very stringent regulations. By following those regulations, a refinery would create less pollution than the ones already in existence at that time.



That sounds great on the surface but the problem is that those same regulations make the cost of building a new refinery so much higher that a new refinery could not possibly compete economically with the older refineries. Instead, oil refinery companies have simply kept up repairs and maintenace of the older, high polluting refineries.



What would have made sense is for congress to reach a compromise and ease those regulations just enough so the oil refining companies would be willing to build new and somewhat less polluting refineries and scrap the older highly polluting refineries. Would the new refineries be as clean as cogress hoped for originally? No, would they be cleaner than the decades old refineries still in use today? Yes.
 
Holden_C04 said:
Sure, let's drill for more oil. Let's build more pipelines. Let's build more refineries.
Click to expand...



Yes lets, there currently isn't a viable alternative. And lets not compare winter vs summer pics to further the man-made global warming myth.
 
Scottwax, you have become my favorite person on here. If ever I am down in your area, we need to get together. We can talk cars and politics!! The arguments against drilling are just plain silly. I am amazed that there are intelligent people that buy into the lies and untruths that the major media spouts off each and every night. Unfortunatly, to try and have a logical debate is next to impossible because how do you debate someone that gets there imformation from Al Gore. I love my country (not ashamed of it). I am a capitalist (not a socialist). I work sixty hours a week for what I have (don't expect the gov. to give me a damn thing).



I do wish that people on this board will not hold a grudge against others who's opinions may differ. I know I won't!!!!!!
 
fergnation said:
I do wish that people on this board will not hold a grudge against others who's opinions may differ. I know I won't!!!!!!
Click to expand...



I don't hold Scottwax's inferior political views againt him. :p



(I'm only kidding)
 
Scottwax said:
Yes lets, there currently isn't a viable alternative. And lets not compare winter vs summer pics to further the man-made global warming myth.
Click to expand...



There are alternatives. Drilling for oil only prolongs the issue, maybe by a few months.



How about exploring a range of alternative fuels (considering there is no one replacement for oil currently) such as:



Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) & Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO)

Electric Power (green if using solar, nuclear, or hydro electricity)

Cold Fusion (great idea if they could get it to work consistently- free energy!)





(I'll add more as I think of them. It's late)
 
Holden_C04 said:
Winter vs Summer?





global-warming-pictures1.jpg


global-warming-pictures2.jpg


global-warming-pictures3.jpg
Click to expand...



So what is you point? We can all use pics and data to OUR OWN POLITICAL AGENDA advantage! I am not a tree hugger for the sake of global warming, but I think we do need to go green for a couple of reasons. Why are we sending SO MUCH money back to the middle east for oil? Don't they hate us and what we stand for? Haven't they been trying to kill us for years? I do not subscribe to the global warming myths, check out the recorded U.S. highest temps and you will see that most happened during the 1930's before we belched all the carbon from our V-8's into the air. I think I have some selfish reasons for not polluting our planet further. I have kids and a grandkid and have always felt we should leave this world a better place for them. Holden, you seem like a very talented and smart person. Just don't fall for all the latest crap you hear. Make intelligent decisions based on REAL facts and not the B.S. you hear day in and day out on the Clinton News Network (CNN) etc. The Greenpeace website has an agenda that appeals to people that will send them money (they make a living from it!!!) so they perpetuate their own jobs and justify the reason they are doing it. Do we really need to drive shiny cars? No, but you make your living making people believe they do. It feeds your family and that is all that matters to you. These other people who promote their agenda are just trying to feed theirs too, maybe on a thicker steak!
 
Holden_C04 said:
370px-Pedersen_Glacier.jpg




Sure, let's drill for more oil. Let's build more pipelines. Let's build more refineries.
Click to expand...



The questions that pop into my head when presented with photos like above and the others posted is "What would a photo from that exact same position look like 500 years prior to the earliest image posted?" Would the glacier be larger, smaller, or the same size?



If the glacier was larger, without speculating about how much larger, then what made them shrink during that time? It certainly couldn't be pinned on man, so what then?



If the glacier was smaller, then it's more than likely the result of natural temperature fluctuations most assuredly having nothing to do with man.



If the glacier were the exact same size however, now you'd have something to talk about. But what are the odds really? This is the best case scenario for the 'global warming' alarmists since it's the only one that can possibly support their theory, but it also IMO seems the least likely.



So there you have it, I don't know the answer and in all likelihood, no one does which is why the debate continues. And yes, it does continue even though the alarmists like to claim that it's over. Why, just in May of this year the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) signed a petition (see here) stating that "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..." This makes the claim of over 600 scientists of the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) pale by comparison and to make matters worse, there is dispute over whether there is, in fact, an actual consensus within the IPCC.



I'll wrap this up with a recent study that basically says that of the 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data, none of them accurately predict observed temperature changes. See the report here (clicky).
 
The problem is that the other side of this whole "climate change" argument is NOT getting any exposure from the talking heads on the TV. If all I knew about the issue was from what I saw on TV - well I'd be an idiot but more importantly, I wouldn't have the opportunity to make my own decision. And that my fellow Americans is just fine with the politicians, they don't want you informed, they promise that the government will take care of your every need from cradle to grave, and the sad part is - many people believe that it's the "government's" job to do that. Can somebody please show me in the Constitution where it spells that out. No - you can't, it's just vote buying and it happens in both parties. We need someone to stand up and say NO MORE, we need less government not more. Don't think so, look at the wonderful world of socialize medicine in England and Canada - hell even the father of Canadian health care - Claude Castonguay called it a failure. And that's where the boobs in Washington want to take us - c'mon people - wake the hell up. We need to decide to put FREE back into free enterprize, you bring in Tort Reform and these damn trail lawyers would dry up and doctors could afford insurance and the price would go down. I'm not saying that we don't need to police bad doctors but if we keep on the path we're on - there want be many doc's left. The man that delivered both my daughters - by C- section too, quit to go back to teaching - why, insurance. Think about that when your wife is about to give birth and you have to drive 4 hours to the nearest over crouded hospital, it could happen and probably will before it gets better.



You may not agree with me and that's fine, but remember, I've heard your side, it's on CNN every night. At least do yourself a favor and listen to the other side of the issues. It might make you rethink things and that in itself ain't bad.
 
Holden -



Please reflect on this handy little graphic before you post any more stupid photos...

Climate History



It displays the climate history throughout the life of our planet.



As you can see, there is a natural change in temperature through the decades/centuries, which has NOT been influenced by man. If cameras had been around, your nice glacier pictures may have been pools of molten lava or rain forests.



Let me ask you this, what caused all of the climate changes that took place before man even walked the earth? Was it CO2 emissions from power plants? Where those damn dinosaurs driving around in their gas-guzzlers too much?



Global climate change is a natural part of Earth's life cycle. The only difference in the past was...there were no crazy politicians/scientists/academics to blame it on the dinosaurs/cavemen/reptiles/ect.
 
Politics and religion always lead to debates like this one :) I am not a big believer in climate change caused by humans either. But I still think it's wise to develop alternatives to using oil, for many reasons.
 
mattgg11 said:
Holden -



Please reflect on this handy little graphic before you post any more stupid photos...

Climate History
Click to expand...



A bit harsh there.



The ice can be dated, so there may well be further evidence to back up those pictures.



On the other hand, I do agree with you on the natural heating and cooling cycles of this planet. Counter-arguments to the global warming theory is a marked increase in solar activity over the last 15 years.



That aside though, man-made pollution doesnt help, does it? Pumping out tons of poisionous gas does nobody any good. Especially when it comes to keeping the car clen.
 
dazzerjp said:
A bit harsh there.



The ice can be dated, so there may well be further evidence to back up those pictures.



On the other hand, I do agree with you on the natural heating and cooling cycles of this planet. Counter-arguments to the global warming theory is a marked increase in solar activity over the last 15 years.



That aside though, man-made pollution doesnt help, does it? Pumping out tons of poisionous gas does nobody any good. Especially when it comes to keeping the car clen.
Click to expand...



I'm not arguing that pollution/emissions are not bad for us...of course it is. But Holden was presenting before/after pictures to further his claim that our climate is changing because of what man has done. He ignores this simple fact...



"Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.



Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.



Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate."



Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
 
Banacheq said:
The questions that pop into my head when presented with photos like above and the others posted is "What would a photo from that exact same position look like 500 years prior to the earliest image posted?" Would the glacier be larger, smaller, or the same size?



If the glacier was larger, without speculating about how much larger, then what made them shrink during that time? It certainly couldn't be pinned on man, so what then?



If the glacier was smaller, then it's more than likely the result of natural temperature fluctuations most assuredly having nothing to do with man.



If the glacier were the exact same size however, now you'd have something to talk about. But what are the odds really? This is the best case scenario for the 'global warming' alarmists since it's the only one that can possibly support their theory, but it also IMO seems the least likely.



So there you have it, I don't know the answer and in all likelihood, no one does which is why the debate continues. And yes, it does continue even though the alarmists like to claim that it's over. Why, just in May of this year the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 PhDs) signed a petition (see here) stating that "… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate..." This makes the claim of over 600 scientists of the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) pale by comparison and to make matters worse, there is dispute over whether there is, in fact, an actual consensus within the IPCC.



I'll wrap this up with a recent study that basically says that of the 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data, none of them accurately predict observed temperature changes. See the report here (clicky).
Click to expand...





In the introduction on that paper, there is no mention of this. Is it further in?
 
mattgg11 said:
Holden -



Please reflect on this handy little graphic before you post any more stupid photos...

Climate History



It displays the climate history throughout the life of our planet.



As you can see, there is a natural change in temperature through the decades/centuries, which has NOT been influenced by man. If cameras had been around, your nice glacier pictures may have been pools of molten lava or rain forests.



Let me ask you this, what caused all of the climate changes that took place before man even walked the earth? Was it CO2 emissions from power plants? Where those damn dinosaurs driving around in their gas-guzzlers too much?



Global climate change is a natural part of Earth's life cycle. The only difference in the past was...there were no crazy politicians/scientists/academics to blame it on the dinosaurs/cavemen/reptiles/ect.
Click to expand...



Do you know how long those periods are? I am talking about drastic change over a very short period of time. There is nothing geologic about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top