A must read...

Dungheap said:
Well, the first quote that you posted is a pretty good place to start:

I don't know what he means by "eventually" but he has to mean more than the next 25 years. The idea that we "eliminate just 5 million barrels of our current 9 million barrels of imported petroleum" is insane. "Just?" We produce about 5 million barrels per day currently. Pretending that we could magically double that production in any sort of near term window is unrealistic. The EIA projects an increase to about 6 million bpd by 2035, and that includes increased production due to technological innovation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are a hack and your comments are therefore worthless. No sense reading what you wrote.
 
Darla said:
Yes, become a vegetarian. Look up the stats on that - it's the single biggest thing any individual can do to drastically lower your contribution to global warming, among other things. It's really stunning. If it's too much, and for most it is, become a vegetarian-except-for-weekends, or a vegetarian-before-5pm. Even that would matter. A lot.

That's something I've known for years. Right now I'm in the middle of studying up on the science. Honestly, I am sick and tired of listening to the deniers, but I've never read up on the science. It's something I've known I'd have to tackle for a while.

Actually, Superfreak inspired me to take it up.

That boy soooo needs an ass-kicking on the topic and I finally realized that like everything else in life; when you want something done and done well, do it. Don't wait for someone else.

So that's coming. 2012 and it's totally on.
Click to expand...

CO2 levels have been increasing for the past decade, yet we have seen no significant warming. The models have blown up across the board, yet the fear mongers continue to pretend that the debate is over and they continue to shout CONSENSUS!

As I have stated a hundred times before, there is a lot we can do to protect the environment, to reduce our pollution of land/air/water. The money wasted on the endless quest to blame man for the global temp rising would have been far better used elsewhere.

Don't worry about not having read up on the science... none of the fear mongers pay attention to science. Just ask Mutt. Or Cypress. or Bfgrn. All you have to do to be 'correct' is shout Consensus ten times while spinning counter clockwise. Then simply proclaim all others to be 'deniers'.
 
Superfreak said:
CO2 levels have been increasing for the past decade, yet we have seen no significant warming. The models have blown up across the board, yet the fear mongers continue to pretend that the debate is over and they continue to shout CONSENSUS!

As I have stated a hundred times before, there is a lot we can do to protect the environment, to reduce our pollution of land/air/water. The money wasted on the endless quest to blame man for the global temp rising would have been far better used elsewhere.

Don't worry about not having read up on the science... none of the fear mongers pay attention to science. Just ask Mutt. Or Cypress. or Bfgrn. All you have to do to be 'correct' is shout Consensus ten times while spinning counter clockwise. Then simply proclaim all others to be 'deniers'.
Click to expand...

What you should worry about is that I am reading the science.
 
Just FTR, humans don't need animal protein. You can get all of the protein you need from things like nuts, which are a great, delicious, and healthy source of protein! Other things too, but if I mention them people will gag because no one likes to try new stuff, and they hear certain words and get all icked out. But everyone likes nuts don't they? That's one really great way.
 
Dungheap said:
Let's move on to the other quotes that SF highlights:

No, they wouldn't. OPEC controls too much of the world's oil production and reserves. The only way this could actually work is if we increased our production and refining capacity without actually bringing it on line such that we could ramp up production in response to an OPEC cut off and substantially replace the OPEC oil. That's implausible at best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving you have no clue what you are talking about. The greater our domestic production, the LESS the influence OPEC has on us. Period.

We could cease federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol tomorrow. They aren't an energy policy problem. They're an electoral politics problem. Getting rid of Iowa's first in the country primary and getting rid of legislators in hoc to agribusiness are the only way you're going to get rid of corn subsidies. Increased domestic oil production isn't going to do it.
Click to expand...

LMAO... his point was correct. Ending subsidies will indeed save billions and it will indeed return food to the global market for consumption rather than fuel. The rest of your comments are not addressing his point. By creating more domestic oil and nat gas, we would have less of a need to be trying to create an inefficient grain based ethanol.
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks for proving you have no clue what you are talking about. The greater our domestic production, the LESS the influence OPEC has on us. Period.
Click to expand...

First of all, the claim is that increased domestic oil production would free us from the worries of OPEC threats to cutoff and price spikes, not that it would merely lessen the influence that OPEC has on us. But anyway, increased oil production merely increases the global supply of oil. Yes, that would reduce the price of oil, but if OPEC cut production the prices would just increase. It isn't as though domestic oil would be cheaper than foreign oil. OPEC controls enough of the global oil reserves and production to have significant impacts on us regardless of what we do.

Superfreak said:
LMAO... his point was correct. Ending subsidies will indeed save billions and it will indeed return food to the global market for consumption rather than fuel.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that ending subsidies would save money, but ending the subsidies has little to do with energy policy. Increased domestic production of oil isn't necessary to end the subsidies as he suggested (" . . . could cease"). The subsidies could cease tomorrow if Congress and the President wanted to. But they don't want to because of the electoral politics of corn subsidies.

I also think you're a being just slightly short-sighted if you think that farmers would continue to grow corn in the absence of the subsidies instead of other more lucrative crops. The only reason corn dominates is the government subsidizing the shit out of it.

Superfreak said:
The rest of your comments are not addressing his point. By creating more domestic oil and nat gas, we would have less of a need to be trying to create an inefficient grain based ethanol.
Click to expand...

We don't have an energy need to created an inefficient grain based ehtanol that is assuaged by creating more domestic oil and nat gas. We have an agriculture and energy policy that promotes it.
 
Darla said:
Just FTR, humans don't need animal protein. You can get all of the protein you need from things like nuts, which are a great, delicious, and healthy source of protein! Other things too, but if I mention them people will gag because no one likes to try new stuff, and they hear certain words and get all icked out. But everyone likes nuts don't they? That's one really great way.
Click to expand...
That's not true. You can't get complete protiens from vegetable sources. I would agree that the average American consumes far to much protien in their diet and that this is not healthy and that it probably is better to obtain most of your protien from vegetable sources but proper nutrition requires that you get some animal protien so that one obtains their allowance of complete protiens in their diet. It's also difficult to get adequate levels of B vitamens from vegetable sources too. A little bit of dairy and a couple of eggs a week make that an easy fix though.
 
Darla said:
Don't think so.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yes, it is. No significant warming in over a decade. Yet CO2 levels have continued rising. The models are blowing up. New studies are showing there are other more likely causes for the increases. This is FAR from being over with regards to the study. So the fear mongers are wrong to have been stating the debate is over for the past decade+
 
"but proper nutrition requires that you get some animal protien so that one obtains their allowance of complete protiens in their diet."

That's simply not substantiated by fact.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yes, it is. No significant warming in over a decade. Yet CO2 levels have continued rising. The models are blowing up. New studies are showing there are other more likely causes for the increases. This is FAR from being over with regards to the study. So the fear mongers are wrong to have been stating the debate is over for the past decade+
Click to expand...

We'll see. The debate here will be over when I say it's over.
 
Darla said:
Wait, stop there.

Where did I say that you could?

My statement:

humans don't need animal protein. You can get all of the protein you need from things like nuts
Click to expand...

Sorry about this Mott, I thought you had written that you can't get animal protein from vegetable sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top