What's up your arse? Lose another $100K this past month?
Not sure what you're asking here. It's okay to do now; it was okay a year ago, and it will be okay a year from now.
Tide is Turning on Manmade Climate Change
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
What's up your arse? Lose another $100K this past month?
Not sure what you're asking here. It's okay to do now; it was okay a year ago, and it will be okay a year from now.
It isn't. We should not still be dependent on foreign sources of energy. It's just plain stupid as a national security policy. There's been a lot of talk and very little movement in the direction of energy independence. We need it.
Topspin
Verified User
HUH? three years ago you said the economy was rosy and no problems on the horizon. I was about the only one who was talking of the coming crash.
heck one year ago you denied a recession.
the parking lots are full
Idjit!
your a ged idiot, you and Canadiankid failed to accept a 6% gdp gain a couple years back.
Like I said contiue to say the sky is falling after this recession and you'll be right after being wrong for 7yrs.
KingCondanomation
New member
What have I dissed? Have you ever had a radon test done? Just about any house has trace amounts of radioactivity in it, but inhaling a tiny quantity (which I'm sure you've done) does no harm to you.amazing how you embrace the scientific "facts" that you agree with and diss the rest.
even trace amounts of the heavy metals might cause damage, but just not kill you or disable you.
go snort some uranium dust. Enjoy
but do not breathe any second hand cigarette smoke for sure.
Uranium is a natural element on the periodic table, it's all around us, with trace amounts in the air and water, virtually all of that being natural.
KingCondanomation
New member
This is completely and totally false. Trace amounts of mercury are in the air we breathe, in the water we drink, and in most of the food we eat.
For example, an apple contains 3-5 mg of aluminum and trace amounts of lead, arsenic and mercury.
http://www.pillfreevitamins.com/health/docs/HeavyMetals.htm
I have said I'd support more domestic drilling, as well.
You're so defensive about oil; you're like a child.
uscitizen
Villified User
Fixed that for ya.
btw how much of that gain was in the price of gasoline?
How much was in real growth?
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Dano, could i just point out that the bloke you're quoting in your article, Sammy Wilson, is not the UK's Environment Minister.
He's a member of the DUP (from Northern Ireland) and is the Environment Minister of the Northern Irish Assembly. In other words he's pretty much a nobody in UK politics.
He's a member of the DUP (from Northern Ireland) and is the Environment Minister of the Northern Irish Assembly. In other words he's pretty much a nobody in UK politics.
Topspin
Verified User
then my bad, 90% of turbo libs are against it
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
They probably accepted the number. It's just the gdp is meaningless when that consumption dollar goes overseas and americans are included in the economy only as consumers, with no jobs available. Do you understand?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think the refusal to accept the 'consensus' is due to all of the assumptions that are made in the process. Couple that with the stamping of feet by many on the topic proclaiming the discussion 'over' and you have your reasons that people want to stand against this so called consensus.
But as you stated, there are plenty of reasons to promote clean energy and to switch over to it as much as possible.
$700 billion a year going overseas... this first and foremost needs to be reversed. For national security reasons if nothing else.
We can do this by...
1) Drilling our own nat gas and oil... for the environmentalists who are so opposed to this concept... ask yourselves... who do you have greater control over in terms of environmental oversight... drillers in the US or drillers overseas?
2) Take all the money we are wasting on figuring out who to blame for 'global warming' and pump it into alt energy research and development. Add to that a massive infrastructure campaign to build out nat gas pumps at all filling stations and get the US automakers to switch to nat gas vehicle production. It is not the perfect environmental solution, but it is cleaner than burning gas.
3) Solar, Wind, non-grain based ethanol production, geothermal, nuclear energy should all be expanded. Solar and wind have the capability of taking over much of the nat gas produced electricity. Which frees up nat gas for auto consumption.
4) Algae based ethanol production. This method uses very little water compared to other sources. production can be done almost anywhere. Algae removes pollutants from the air. After the oil is removed, the remaining byproduct is a high carb source of food that can be used for livestock.... which means they consume less of other foodsources.
C
Cancel3
Guest
You are talking about elemental mercury, while the dangerous pollutant is methylmercury.
When people say that mercury is safe they are not addressing the various types and exposures of methylmercury.
It has been shown to produce serious nervous system damage in the fetus when the mother consumes fish with methylmercury buildup in it.
And the amount of methylmercury in the fish does not cause harm to the mother.
http://www.medicinenet.com/mercury_poisoning/article.htm
Oh, this was fucking priceless! Thanks Charver, for the laugh.
KingCondanomation
New member
I don't buy the national security argument. There are many countries such as Switzerland, China or anywhere in South America that stay out of the middle east and have zero problems with national security from there.
We don't need to stop buying oil, that is what is cheapest and helps the poor the most with heating and transportation. We just need to stay out of the middle east and stop support of Israel. That's it.
As for the $700 billion argument, who cares? How many hundreds of billions do we spend on goods from China or clothes from south-southeast Asia? It's called trade and we benefit as well from that, both with stronger purchasing power with cheaper goods and with them in turn buying services and goods from us.
We don't need to stop buying oil, that is what is cheapest and helps the poor the most with heating and transportation. We just need to stay out of the middle east and stop support of Israel. That's it.
As for the $700 billion argument, who cares? How many hundreds of billions do we spend on goods from China or clothes from south-southeast Asia? It's called trade and we benefit as well from that, both with stronger purchasing power with cheaper goods and with them in turn buying services and goods from us.
Great arguments. You always say you're talking "facts," but when push comes to shove, it's always just "I don't buy it" and "this is how I feel."
There is no logical economic argument for shipping $700 billion overseas, or for any kind of case that making the Middle East rich doesn't hurt our national security. You're a really, really sad case, and - like I said - you're a dinosaur. America is already moving on from your tired, old & irrelevant argument.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The difference between buying clothes or other goods from other countries vs. buying oil or nat gas is that we are not getting the oil and nat gas cheaper from other countries. The price remains the same regardless of whether we buy foreign or produce our own. Which means there is no economic incentive to buy from another country when we have the capability to produce it ourselves.
It keeps jobs in the US and it keeps the money in our economy.
As for national security, we do not want other countries having control over our energy. We saw what that can produce in the 70's. We do not want to be that vulnerable again. Period.
You are wrong in that the countries you listed are not vulnerable to national security implications. They too are at the mercy of whomever they buy their energy. Which is why China is investing so much in solar right now, which is why countries like Brazil fought to gain energy independence, which is why Europe is scared of being held hostage by Russia again. Some of those countries you mention may not have the ability to become energy independent. But we do.... and we are foolish for not making it happen.
But surely we cannot recover the oil as cheaply as other countries. While oil is fungible and the price of the oil remains the same, the cost of extracting the oil and natural gas is not the same. It is oftentimes much cheaper to buy it elsewhere.
Yeah, but at what cost. Is the money better spent on other job producing industries where we have an actual competitive advantage?
I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. The problem is that the oil producers have economic needs as well and oftentimes need to sell the oil. They can't just sit on it.
You seriously overestimate our capacity to become energy independent.