Rank your political views

[Pwns]

I'm willing to do some things for sustainability but I think it's only worth going so far. If going back to covered wagons and having the government decide who gets to reproduce is the only way to save the planet, I say with no hesitation fvck the planet. On the grand geoligical time scale the biosphere is around 90% of the way through its life because of the aging of the sun, anyways. The chances are the environmentalists are wrong about immnent biosphere collapse due to industrialized society like they always are (remember Paul Ehrlich and all of the Earth day 1970 predictions?).

How do we even know the world population hasn't already peaked and fallen, anyways? It's not like most the developing countries that account for the vast majority of the population growth have any kind of birth certificates, death certificates, records, a healthcare system to keep track of HIV and starvation deaths, or censuses. Estimating the world population is a really mushy soft science just like the "science" that supposedly "proves" human activity is responsible for global warming or whatever name they might be using so they can blame more weather anomalies on it.

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I'm willing to do some things for sustainability but I think it's only worth going so far. If going back to covered wagons and having the government decide who gets to reproduce is the only way to save the planet, I say with no hesitation fvck the planet. On the grand geoligical time scale the biosphere is around 90% of the way through its life because of the aging of the sun, anyways. The chances are the environmentalists are wrong about immnent biosphere collapse due to industrialized society like they always are (remember Paul Ehrlich and all of the Earth day 1970 predictions?).

How do we even know the world population hasn't already peaked and fallen, anyways? It's not like most the developing countries that account for the vast majority of the population growth have any kind of birth certificates, death certificates, records, a healthcare system to keep track of HIV and starvation deaths, or censuses. Estimating the world population is a really mushy soft science just like the "science" that supposedly "proves" human activity is responsible for global warming or whatever name they might be using so they can blame more weather anomalies on it.

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

Good post!

Out west of me here in NW MN in ND, there is 400-600 yrs of coal to supply the US with all of its electricity. And now they are thinking the Bakken and Three Forks formations have even more oil than previously thought. Plus with the way the wind blows here...there are more wind turbines going up.

Plus your comment on nuclear power is spot on.

[JohnStOnge]

And ignoring the data while throwing out smoke screens is irresponsible. We all know that the earth goes through these cycles. But every other one has been very gradual. This one is gaining a head of steam and rolling pretty quickly comparatively. In no other cycle have we had a group of organisms pulling massive amounts of carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the atmosphere. No one in the scientific community researching this has said mankind caused it.

I see this has turned into yet another climate change debate. I don't think one has to be ignoring the data to disagree with your point of view. Also, you may not be correct about every other change being gradual. It is believed that "abrupt" climate changes have periodically occurred. If you go to the IPCC document at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and do a "find" on "abrupt," for example, you can find this statement:

The importance of other sources of climate variability was heightened by the discovery of abrupt climate changes. In this context, ‘abrupt’ designates regional events of large amplitude, typically a few degrees celsius, which occurred within several decades – much shorter than the thousand-year time scales that characterise changes in astronomical forcing. Abrupt temperature changes were first revealed by the analysis of deep ice cores from Greenland (Dansgaard et al., 1984).

You can read on but you can see from that language that it is believed that there have been changes of a "few degrees celsius" within "several decades." Then it goes on to reference what is viewed as evidence of such changes in "deep ice cores." "Deep ice cores" basically means it's believed to have happend WAY long before humankind started burning fossil fuels, etc. Probably when there were relatively few members of our species on planet.

As an aside: Did you mean to type, "No one in the scientific community researching this has said mankind caused it"? If you meant to, was that intended as sarcasm?

[houndawg]

I'm willing to do some things for sustainability but I think it's only worth going so far. If going back to covered wagons and having the government decide who gets to reproduce is the only way to save the planet, I say with no hesitation fvck the planet. On the grand geoligical time scale the biosphere is around 90% of the way through its life because of the aging of the sun, anyways. The chances are the environmentalists are wrong about immnent biosphere collapse due to industrialized society like they always are (remember Paul Ehrlich and all of the Earth day 1970 predictions?).

How do we even know the world population hasn't already peaked and fallen, anyways? It's not like most the developing countries that account for the vast majority of the population growth have any kind of birth certificates, death certificates, records, a healthcare system to keep track of HIV and starvation deaths, or censuses. Estimating the world population is a really mushy soft science just like the "science" that supposedly "proves" human activity is responsible for global warming or whatever name they might be using so they can blame more weather anomalies on it.

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I'm willing to do some things for sustainability but I think it's only worth going so far. If going back to covered wagons and having the government decide who gets to reproduce is the only way to save the planet, I say with no hesitation fvck the planet. On the grand geoligical time scale the biosphere is around 90% of the way through its life because of the aging of the sun, anyways. The chances are the environmentalists are wrong about immnent biosphere collapse due to industrialized society like they always are (remember Paul Ehrlich and all of the Earth day 1970 predictions?).

How do we even know the world population hasn't already peaked and fallen, anyways? It's not like most the developing countries that account for the vast majority of the population growth have any kind of birth certificates, death certificates, records, a healthcare system to keep track of HIV and starvation deaths, or censuses. Estimating the world population is a really mushy soft science just like the "science" that supposedly "proves" human activity is responsible for global warming or whatever name they might be using so they can blame more weather anomalies on it.

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

Maybe....I'll go out on a limb here....More profit?

[kalm]

I'm willing to do some things for sustainability but I think it's only worth going so far. If going back to covered wagons and having the government decide who gets to reproduce is the only way to save the planet, I say with no hesitation fvck the planet. On the grand geoligical time scale the biosphere is around 90% of the way through its life because of the aging of the sun, anyways. The chances are the environmentalists are wrong about immnent biosphere collapse due to industrialized society like they always are (remember Paul Ehrlich and all of the Earth day 1970 predictions?).

How do we even know the world population hasn't already peaked and fallen, anyways? It's not like most the developing countries that account for the vast majority of the population growth have any kind of birth certificates, death certificates, records, a healthcare system to keep track of HIV and starvation deaths, or censuses. Estimating the world population is a really mushy soft science just like the "science" that supposedly "proves" human activity is responsible for global warming or whatever name they might be using so they can blame more weather anomalies on it.

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

"Limp-wristed environmentalism"? That must imply that it's gay versus ineffective since it put a halt to nuclear. It also brought the Spokane River back from one that was almost sterile and you could set on fire in the 70's to a river now full of native red band trout and that you can swim and kayak in. There's also several species that have come back from extinction since the 70's.

[houndawg]

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

Maybe....I'll go out on a limb here....More profit?

The bottleneck is in refining, not crude supply....

[Pwns]

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

The sun will continue to shine for billions more years, but the biosphere will become too hot for most life well before the sun actually explodes into space dust. It's just a few hundred millions years away, which on the grand geological time scale is not all that long.

On your second point, again I ask you, if having such a huge excess of crude is such a boon to oil companies, why haven't oil companies been able to get drilling in places that they want?

[houndawg]

And by the way, myopic, limp-wristed environmentalism is the main reason we let 30 years go by without investing in a single nuclear reactor. And don't give me that crap about oil companies controlling the government. If they controlled the government we'd have more offshore drilling and drilling in places like Alaska. Brilliant f***ing move getting away from nuclear power was. But don't worry, wind and solar power will save civilization.

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

The sun will continue to shine for billions more years, but the biosphere will become too hot for most life well before the sun actually explodes into space dust. It's just a few hundred millions years away, which on the grand geological time scale is not all that long.

On your second point, again I ask you, if having such a huge excess of crude is such a boon to oil companies, why haven't oil companies been able to get drilling in places that they want?[/quote]

You tell me; they have millions of acres in leases they aren't using.

[Pwns]

You tell me; they have millions of acres in leases they aren't using.

Why haven't they been able to get any kind of lease or permission for more offshore drilling and ANWR drilling?

[houndawg]

You tell me; they have millions of acres in leases they aren't using.

Why haven't they been able to get any kind of lease or permission for more offshore drilling and ANWR drilling?

BP?

Why don't they drill on the millions of acres of leases they hold right now?

[Pwns]

Why haven't they been able to get any kind of lease or permission for more offshore drilling and ANWR drilling?

BP?

Why don't they drill on the millions of acres of leases they hold right now?

What do you mean "BP"?

And let me see if I understand you correctly...the oil companies are not drilling for any more oil all while they don't want to try and build any more refinery capacity...all because that will maximize their profits?

[houndawg]

BP?

Why don't they drill on the millions of acres of leases they hold right now?

What do you mean "BP"?

And let me see if I understand you correctly...the oil companies are not drilling for any more oil all while they don't want to try and build any more refinery capacity...all because that will maximize their profits?

He asked why they can't get more permits to drill offshore. I think the BP debacle may have had something to do with that.

[houndawg]

BP?

Why don't they drill on the millions of acres of leases they hold right now?

What do you mean "BP"?

And let me see if I understand you correctly...the oil companies are not drilling for any more oil all while they don't want to try and build any more refinery capacity...all because that will maximize their profits?

Who said they aren't drilling for anymore oil? Obviously they are.

[death dealer]

Jon, no research that is currently considered credible AFAIK says mankind caused climate change. What I believe they are suggesting is that we are accelerating/influencing the severity by moving so much carbon around artificially. You are of course going to go dig around and find some obscure article to make your point and then type a twenty page post that no one wants to read in order to make your point, all I can only assume out of some need to be the Anti-Captain Planet, defender of big industrial interests. I just don't see what guys like you and me are so afraid of with this stuff. It's so easy to see that we are having an effect. And it would not be unreasonable to say so and then try to take a common sense approach to maybe curtail and control some of those effects. I don't see anyone lining up to start building those covered wagons some asshole on here mentioned. What a dumbass example. JFC. but it wouldn't hurt to drive a little more interest into alternatives to coal and oil. What are they so afraid of by the way? Do they really think they are going to lose market share? We are going to have to keep on using FF's for a long time, probably until they run out, but we better start figuring out what we are going to do without them, because that day is coming sooner than we'd like. I'd like to know that my great grands are going to be able to enjoy the same lifestyle/outdoor heritage that I and my forebears have had. We'll probably survive whatever comes along as a species because we are so damn resourceful, but surviving and thriving are not the same.

[JohnStOnge]

on, no research that is currently considered credible AFAIK says mankind caused climate change. What I believe they are suggesting is that we are accelerating/influencing the severity by moving so much carbon around artificially. You are of course going to go dig around and find some obscure article to make your point and then type a twenty page post that no one wants to read in order to make your point,

I don't normally cite "obscure" articles. I am very careful about the references I link because I know people will attack the reference. Many times I will see the same thing indicated by numerous sources but will pass on those that some might attack until I get to one that people on the "other side" would have a difficult doing that with.

In this case I can use the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Physical Science Basis Report. Yes, everybody would agree that "climate change" as a general matter (climate changes) would happen with or without humans. But the IPCC report clearly indicates a consensus belief that things are different than they would be without anthropogenic activity. They clearly make the case that human beings have "changed" things from what they otherwise would be.

See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 9-4-5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I don't think you need to read more than the first paragraph to see they're saying mankind caused climate change. Like this statement:

The fact that no coupled model simulation so far has reproduced global temperature changes over the 20th century without anthropogenic forcing is strong evidence for the influence of humans on global climate.

No, they're not saying there would be no climate change at all without humans. But they're still staying humankind had influenced that climate and that's changing it from what it otherwise would be.

[Grizalltheway]

The sun is good for a few billion more years.....


We have more crude than we can refine right now. Explain why the oil companies want to increase supply with profits at an all time high?

The sun will continue to shine for billions more years, but the biosphere will become too hot for most life well before the sun actually explodes into space dust. It's just a few hundred millions years away, which on the grand geological time scale is not all that long.

On your second point, again I ask you, if having such a huge excess of crude is such a boon to oil companies, why haven't oil companies been able to get drilling in places that they want?

Pay attention, Mort. Shell just started (or at least tried to start) operations in the Arctic Ocean this summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/busin ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[death dealer]

No, they're not saying there would be no climate change at all without humans. But they're still saying humankind had influenced that climate and that's changing it from what it otherwise would be.

Really? That's what I just said! Human actions didn't cause the change but has influenced it in a bad way. So, your contention is that our carbon input has had no detrimental effect on the climate?