global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

[NOVA]

How about volcanoes and forest fires, clarabell ?

Is that co2 artificial or real......>:lol:

===================================================================
===================================================================

Clarabell, you go on and on for 4 or 5 posts running your mouth off like a fuckin' machine gun over a simple question....

Is the co2 from volcanoes and forest fires artificial or real ?....:lol:

Damn, you're entertaining....and I can't even hear you beep the little horn on your belt.....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Cataclysmic eruptions, such as the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines), inject huge amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, where it combines with water to form an aerosol (mist) of sulfuric acid. By reflecting solar radiation, such aerosols can lower the Earth's average surface temperature for extended periods of time by several degrees Fahrenheit (°F). These sulfuric acid aerosols also contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer by altering chlorine and nitrogen compounds in the upper atmosphere.

 

[NOVA]

You're making my point......Bravo's statement comparing volcanoes to man-made pollution with regards to CO2 levels is absurd...because if a volcanoe was producing on the same level as our cars and smokestacks, we'd all be dead.

You see...thats what makes you the fuckin' liar you are...the clown of the board....with zero reading comprehension....

I NEVER compared the co2 levels of volcanoes to man made co2....NEVER...

Its you who can't fuckin' understand what a post actually says as opposed to what you WANT it to say in your warped imagination....
LEARN TO READ !

 

[NOVA]

Well come on asshole....are you gonna admit YOU'RE WRONG ....
accusing me of a saying something I plainly didn't say....

Be a fuckin' man for once....

 

[NOVA]

A true coward unable to admit he's wrong on any level.


Ring a bell tc....or maybe beep a tiny horn

 

[Taichiliberal]

===================================================================
===================================================================

Clarabell, you go on and on for 4 or 5 posts running your mouth off like a fuckin' machine gun over a simple question....

Is the co2 from volcanoes and forest fires artificial or real ?....:lol:

Damn, you're entertaining....and I can't even hear you beep the little horn on your belt.....

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

Read the response CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, chuckles. If you miss it again, I'll point it out via cut & paste. Get your head out of clarabell's ass, because the world has moved on since those old days. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You see...thats what makes you the fuckin' liar you are...the clown of the board....with zero reading comprehension....

I NEVER compared the co2 levels of volcanoes to man made co2....NEVER...

Its you who can't fuckin' understand what a post actually says as opposed to what you WANT it to say in your warped imagination....
LEARN TO READ !

Post #109 and #110, for all those who can read, understand what they read in relation to the preceding discussion.

Keep laughing, my intellectually sterile friend....more so to pity you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Again... IF you think there are other agencies that have collected the raw data, PLEASE PROVIDE THEM.



No, you did not. You have not refuted a single point I made.



LMAO... so essentially you just refuted your previous bullshit. If a find is not expected to produce enough oil to cover the costs of production... NO oil company would drill it. NONE. Again you try to create the strawman that I somehow just want to drill for the sake of drilling. All the while you continue to cower and refuse to address the ENVIRONMENTAL point I made. You also try to make this solely about ANWR... when that is only a part of my point.

Again.... IF we are going to use oil... which is better....

Oil produced with OUR environmental standards or oil produced with the standards of another country????

Also... thanks for the link... as this study shows, ANWR would likely produce enough oil to help in a small way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Just as off shore drilling and other sites would.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html




and again.. you fail to realize I already addressed the attempt at using Factcheck by Cypress. Factcheck simply quotes from people and organizations that are dependent on the continuation of funding going to the fear mongering.

I know you flat earthers are scared now that so much has blown up in your face and your champions like Al Gore are hiding trying to figure out how to spin this. Until that time you morons continue with your 'the earth is flat' chant.... I am sure that will work.

Something you overlooked:

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR.

Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.

Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.

The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

So essentially it's a lot of "would of" and "might be" and "should be"....and then we have to make sure that US consumption of oil stays the same...and if so, how many YEARS would the ANWR production actually have?

As for the rest of your repetitive drivel.....spare me. Factcheck LISTS its sources, who subsequently list theirs...if one is inclined to do some proper research, which you are evidently not. All you do is just the typical neocon shuffle, you just dismiss any information out of hand, and then you try to discredit the people reporting the information. Mind you, YOU can't prove that what is reported is false..but assumption and insinuation is good enough for you.

You may continue spinning your wheels.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.



So if you want to dispute the US Geological Survey, by all means contact them and do so.

But they don't just emit CO2, now do they?? !!

And your point? They still are not up to the quantity and consistency of our auto and industrial pollution output. Like I said, you got a beef with the information, contact the US Geological Survey about it.

Initially, you called me a liar. The discussion was about CO2 (the support pillar of the global warming deniers). Now that I provide proof that I'm not lying, you want to change the topic? You're refusal to admit error is irrelevent and irrational...as facts and the logic derived from them are against you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Something you overlooked:

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR.

Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.

Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.

The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

So essentially it's a lot of "would of" and "might be" and "should be"....and then we have to make sure that US consumption of oil stays the same...and if so, how many YEARS would the ANWR production actually have?

As for the rest of your repetitive drivel.....spare me. Factcheck LISTS its sources, who subsequently list theirs...if one is inclined to do some proper research, which you are evidently not. All you do is just the typical neocon shuffle, you just dismiss any information out of hand, and then you try to discredit the people reporting the information. Mind you, YOU can't prove that what is reported is false..but assumption and insinuation is good enough for you.

You may continue spinning your wheels.

Actually, I did read that. Anyone that understands the industry knows that no one is going to invest the time and money to do the surveys on deposits that are not open to drilling.

Again... as I stated, you are trying to make this solely about ANWR... it is not. That is simply your attempt to divert the topic.

As I stated and YOU CONTINUE TO DUCK ANSWERING....

DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS OF OIL PRODUCED IN THE U.S.A. vs. THE OIL PRODUCED IN OTHER COUNTRIES?????????????

DO WE OR DO WE NOT CREATE JOBS FOR U.S. CITIZENS IF WE KEEP THE OIL PRODUCTION HERE vs. OVERSEAS?

DO WE OR DO WE NOT IMPROVE THE TRADE DEFICIT BY DRILLING OUR OWN OIL AND NAT GAS?

DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT IMPROVE OUR ECONOMY TO KEEP THE MONEY HERE vs. SENDING IT OVERSEAS?

DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAX THE OIL PRODUCTION HERE IN THE U.S.?

CAN WE OR CAN WE NOT USE THOSE TAXES TO IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND INCREASE R&D FOR CLEAN AND ALT ENERGY?

So tachi... are you going to continue ducking the above questions? Are you afraid to answer them? Don't worry if you are... because most environmentalists on the extreme fail to realize how drilling our own oil and nat gas can benefit us AND the environment. Because they prefer to continue their knee jerk reactionary bullshit that you continue to spew forth.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And your point? They still are not up to the quantity and consistency of our auto and industrial pollution output. Like I said, you got a beef with the information, contact the US Geological Survey about it.

Initially, you called me a liar. The discussion was about CO2 (the support pillar of the global warming deniers). Now that I provide proof that I'm not lying, you want to change the topic? You're refusal to admit error is irrelevent and irrational...as facts and the logic derived from them are against you.

But I hope you are aware that it's not just CO2, which is essential to life on this planet, that could be part of the problem.
The really big problem is the sulpher that is emitted, that has the potential to cause even a bigger problem.

It is a pity that you just can't admit that all the "Global Warming; er....Climate Change", is just a bunch of fear mongering.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Cataclysmic eruptions, such as the June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines), inject huge amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, where it combines with water to form an aerosol (mist) of sulfuric acid. By reflecting solar radiation, such aerosols can lower the Earth's average surface temperature for extended periods of time by several degrees Fahrenheit (°F). These sulfuric acid aerosols also contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer by altering chlorine and nitrogen compounds in the upper atmosphere.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

And to put an end to your scrambling...SO2 is a by-product of our manufacturing and transportation industry via smokestacks and car/plane exhausts. Do the research if you doubt me. So back to square one.....you have jets, cars, smokestacks all over the globe going 24/7, and they've been doing that for DECADES. Volcanoes world wide are nowhere near that frequency.

My original corrections of your compadre(s) stands.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Something you overlooked:

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR.

Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.

Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.

The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

So essentially it's a lot of "would of" and "might be" and "should be"....and then we have to make sure that US consumption of oil stays the same...and if so, how many YEARS would the ANWR production actually have?

As for the rest of your repetitive drivel.....spare me. Factcheck LISTS its sources, who subsequently list theirs...if one is inclined to do some proper research, which you are evidently not. All you do is just the typical neocon shuffle, you just dismiss any information out of hand, and then you try to discredit the people reporting the information. Mind you, YOU can't prove that what is reported is false..but assumption and insinuation is good enough for you.

You may continue spinning your wheels.

Actually, I did read that. Anyone that understands the industry knows that no one is going to invest the time and money to do the surveys on deposits that are not open to drilling.

Again... as I stated, you are trying to make this solely about ANWR... it is not. That is simply your attempt to divert the topic.

As I stated and YOU CONTINUE TO DUCK ANSWERING....

DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE GREATER CONTROL OVER THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS OF OIL PRODUCED IN THE U.S.A. vs. THE OIL PRODUCED IN OTHER COUNTRIES?????????????

DO WE OR DO WE NOT CREATE JOBS FOR U.S. CITIZENS IF WE KEEP THE OIL PRODUCTION HERE vs. OVERSEAS?

DO WE OR DO WE NOT IMPROVE THE TRADE DEFICIT BY DRILLING OUR OWN OIL AND NAT GAS?

DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT IMPROVE OUR ECONOMY TO KEEP THE MONEY HERE vs. SENDING IT OVERSEAS?

DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAX THE OIL PRODUCTION HERE IN THE U.S.?

CAN WE OR CAN WE NOT USE THOSE TAXES TO IMPROVE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND INCREASE R&D FOR CLEAN AND ALT ENERGY?

So tachi... are you going to continue ducking the above questions? Are you afraid to answer them? Don't worry if you are... because most environmentalists on the extreme fail to realize how drilling our own oil and nat gas can benefit us AND the environment. Because they prefer to continue their knee jerk reactionary bullshit that you continue to spew forth.

Typical neocon.....deny the proof, ignore the facts, repeat the questions add nauseum, wave the flag.

Pay attention, because I'm not going to repeat myself: ANWR IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE GIVEN IT'S ESTIMATED PRODUCTION BALANCED AGAINST CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONSUMPTION RATES, THE TEMPORARY JOBS IT WOULD PRODUCE FOR A MINUTE PORTION OF THE LOCAL POPULATION, AND THE DAMAGE IT WOULD DO TO THE ECO-STRUCTURE (yeah, humans and animals need clean water and fresh air). ANWR PRODUCTION WOULD EASILY BE OFFSET BY FOREIGN PRODUCTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET. When all is said and done, it's a decade long investment for less than 5 years worth of oil for the US population.

AND REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL GUESS WORK AND ESTIMATES THAT EVERYTHING GOES ACCORDING TO PLAN. As my link shows, the concerns that this might not work out as planned weigh heavily against the projected gains...which are not much when properly analyzed.

"Drill baby drill" is the war cry of the willfully ignorant dupes of the oil companies, who will take their profits and leave a hole in the ground, ghost town economy and damaged ecology that they are reluctant to be fully accountable for, as they are with the Exxon Valdez situation.

But do carry on repeating this bilge ad nauseum if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Typical neocon.....deny the proof, ignore the facts, repeat the questions add nauseum, wave the flag.

Pay attention, because I'm not going to repeat myself: ANWR IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE GIVEN IT'S ESTIMATED PRODUCTION BALANCED AGAINST CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONSUMPTION RATES, THE TEMPORARY JOBS IT WOULD PRODUCE FOR A MINUTE PORTION OF THE LOCAL POPULATION, AND THE DAMAGE IT WOULD DO TO THE ECO-STRUCTURE (yeah, humans and animals need clean water and fresh air). ANWR PRODUCTION WOULD EASILY BE OFFSET BY FOREIGN PRODUCTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET. When all is said and done, it's a decade long investment for less than 5 years worth of oil for the US population.

AND REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL GUESS WORK AND ESTIMATES THAT EVERYTHING GOES ACCORDING TO PLAN. As my link shows, the concerns that this might not work out as planned weigh heavily against the projected gains...which are not much when properly analyzed.

"Drill baby drill" is the war cry of the willfully ignorant dupes of the oil companies, who will take their profits and leave a hole in the ground, ghost town economy and damaged ecology that they are reluctant to be fully accountable for, as they are with the Exxon Valdez situation.

But do carry on repeating this bilge ad nauseum if it helps you sleep at night.

Translation: "Yes, I am too much of a coward to answer the questions. Instead I will continue to repeat complete bullshit over and over again and pretend that makes me intelligent"

So do keep cowering in your ignorance. Your refusal to answer the simple questions shows that you are incapable of any type of rational debate on this topic. Bottom line... you are the flat earth type... chanting your idiocy over and over and over again because you don't want to actually have to THINK about the fact that you are a moronic lemming... just like the rest of them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Something you overlooked:

There is much uncertainty regarding the impact of opening ANWR on U.S. oil production and imports, due to several factors:

The size of the underlying resource base. There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region. The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR.

Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain.

Oil field sizes. The size of the oil fields found in ANWR is one factor that will determine the rate at which ANWR oil resources are developed and produced. If the reservoirs are larger than expected, then production would be greater in the 2018 through 2025 timeframe. Similarly, if the reservoirs are smaller than expected, then production would be less.

The quality of the oil and the characteristics of the oil reservoirs. Oil field production rates are also determined by the quality of oil found, e.g., viscosity and paraffin content, and the field’s reservoir characteristics, i.e., its depth, permeability, faulting, and water saturation. This analysis assumes oil quality and reservoir characteristics similar to those associated with the Prudhoe Bay field. If, for example, the oil discovered in ANWR has a considerably higher viscosity than the Prudhoe Bay field oil, e.g., over 10,000 centipoise, then oil production rates would be lower than projected in this analysis.

So essentially it's a lot of "would of" and "might be" and "should be"....and then we have to make sure that US consumption of oil stays the same...and if so, how many YEARS would the ANWR production actually have?

As for the rest of your repetitive drivel.....spare me. Factcheck LISTS its sources, who subsequently list theirs...if one is inclined to do some proper research, which you are evidently not. All you do is just the typical neocon shuffle, you just dismiss any information out of hand, and then you try to discredit the people reporting the information. Mind you, YOU can't prove that what is reported is false..but assumption and insinuation is good enough for you.

You may continue spinning your wheels.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Typical neocon.....deny the proof, ignore the facts, repeat the questions add nauseum, wave the flag.

Pay attention, because I'm not going to repeat myself: ANWR IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE GIVEN IT'S ESTIMATED PRODUCTION BALANCED AGAINST CURRENT AND PROJECTED CONSUMPTION RATES, THE TEMPORARY JOBS IT WOULD PRODUCE FOR A MINUTE PORTION OF THE LOCAL POPULATION, AND THE DAMAGE IT WOULD DO TO THE ECO-STRUCTURE (yeah, humans and animals need clean water and fresh air). ANWR PRODUCTION WOULD EASILY BE OFFSET BY FOREIGN PRODUCTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET. When all is said and done, it's a decade long investment for less than 5 years worth of oil for the US population.

AND REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL GUESS WORK AND ESTIMATES THAT EVERYTHING GOES ACCORDING TO PLAN. As my link shows, the concerns that this might not work out as planned weigh heavily against the projected gains...which are not much when properly analyzed.

"Drill baby drill" is the war cry of the willfully ignorant dupes of the oil companies, who will take their profits and leave a hole in the ground, ghost town economy and damaged ecology that they are reluctant to be fully accountable for, as they are with the Exxon Valdez situation.

But do carry on repeating this bilge ad nauseum if it helps you sleep at night.

Translation: "Yes, I am too much of a coward to answer the questions. Instead I will continue to repeat complete bullshit over and over again and pretend that makes me intelligent"

So do keep cowering in your ignorance. Your refusal to answer the simple questions shows that you are incapable of any type of rational debate on this topic. Bottom line... you are the flat earth type... chanting your idiocy over and over and over again because you don't want to actually have to THINK about the fact that you are a moronic lemming... just like the rest of them.

There you have it folks...another braying neocon jackass who IGNORES what he doesn't like and then tries to substitute "questions" that avoid ALL the FACTS and logical conclusions that disproves his beliefs. And if you answer his questions, and the answers further disprove his contentions, he just brays louder.

The chronology of the thread displays what a pathetic, willfully ignorant dupe this Superfreak is. His lame neocon dodge just doesn't cut it...unless you're another similar minded neocon clown.

Say good night gracie...shows over for you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

And to put an end to your scrambling...SO2 is a by-product of our manufacturing and transportation industry via smokestacks and car/plane exhausts. Do the research if you doubt me. So back to square one.....you have jets, cars, smokestacks all over the globe going 24/7, and they've been doing that for DECADES. Volcanoes world wide are nowhere near that frequency.

My original corrections of your compadre(s) stands.

You left out the word "SOME", for your referral to jets, cars, etc.

 

[NOVA]

POST 114
This is why Bravo's comparison is just utter nonsense. Now I know you're just posting to be an irritant, but I'm sincerely using your childish grudge to make a valid point, and demonstrate the sheer absurdity of Bravo's assertions and the stubborness of the global warming deniers on various levels. Carry on.

POST 116
You're making my point......Bravo's statement comparing volcanoes to man-made pollution with regards to CO2 levels is absurd...because if a volcanoe was producing on the same level as our cars and smokestacks, we'd all be dead.

Post #109 and #110, for all those who can read, understand what they read in relation to the preceding discussion.

Keep laughing, my intellectually sterile friend....more so to pity you.

Its only fair the readers note posts 114 and 116 where you falsely accuse me
of a comparisons I NEVER made and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes when they are pointed out.......mistakes which have now turned into lies because you still refuse to admit it....

You willfully mis-quote or mis-characterize the posts of others or simply don't fuckin' understand what it is your reading.....
Either way,
you're a dishonorable, dishonest, despicable, clown.... now we all can see it in action.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There you have it folks...another braying neocon jackass who IGNORES what he doesn't like and then tries to substitute "questions" that avoid ALL the FACTS and logical conclusions that disproves his beliefs. And if you answer his questions, and the answers further disprove his contentions, he just brays louder.

The chronology of the thread displays what a pathetic, willfully ignorant dupe this Superfreak is. His lame neocon dodge just doesn't cut it...unless you're another similar minded neocon clown.

Say good night gracie...shows over for you.

You really are a fucking idiot. Not once have you answered the questions. Your pretending that somehow YOU know that ANWR is not economically viable somehow answers the questions I posed to you (which again for the record, were not about ANWR, but about drilling in GENERAL)

Your feeble attempts to make this about ANWR just show that you want to run like a fucking coward from the discussion. Like I said, you are another of the flat earth lemmings. You do not have the capacity to think for yourself.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Its only fair the readers note posts 114 and 116 where you falsely accuse me
of a comparisons I NEVER made and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes when they are pointed out.......mistakes which have now turned into lies because you still refuse to admit it....

You willfully mis-quote or mis-characterize the posts of others or simply don't fuckin' understand what it is your reading.....
Either way,
you're a dishonorable, dishonest, despicable, clown.... now we all can see it in action.....

You're a liar and the posts prove it. YOU bring into the conversation something that just doesn't fit into your base assertions. All I did was PROVE that six ways to Sunday....and you don't like it. TFB.....like USFreedumb, your revisionist take on the chronology of the post is just insipid stubborness. You can claim anything...logically and factually proving it is another thing...and as the posts show, you fail in the attempt.

 

[Topspin]

did someone make the joke of anwar not being economical?