People can say what they want, but rising CO2 levels have already changed the climate and will continue doing so for years to come even if emissions are stabilized.

Levels are higher than they have been for millions of years and it looks like the world is heading towards a climate that existed millions of years ago.

The only problem with that is that 6 Billion people didn't inhabit the earth back then. Instead it was a bunch of dinosaurs and every one should know what happened to them.

Look here to see what the trend has been in the NH sea ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

The NH is where climate change will first become apparent due to the large extent of seasonal snow cover (SH doesn't have enough land mass).

Anyhow, good luck to all those people in Washington DC that like to argue and then do nothing.

Right after they get done legislating the climate, they can take on imposing legal limits on gravity and sunspots.

And we thought the middle ages were stupid.

Several weeks back when the senate took up the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill (later modified version known as the Boxer substitute) I watched every hour of the debate. When liberal 90 yr. old Robert Byrd, democrat from W Va. got on a wheel chair and left his hospital room and landed on the floor of the Senate and voted against even bringing the bill up for consideration Harry Reid (majority leader) got the message. Everything that followed was nothing more than rhetoric and showmanship. Lawmakers are finally waking up to the fact that climate change isn`t a high priority with their constiuents.

The future of Russia - wealth and power

At Friday's meeting, Putin said Russia's declining oil production meant the industry was at a "critical juncture" and proposed to cut taxes and slash bureaucracy to encourage new oil development in Arctic regions

"The Arctic zone is a guarantee of Russia's economic power. Oil, gas, gold, diamonds and phosphates -- it's all there," Artur Chilingarov, a member of parliament who is also an Arctic explorer, told AFP before the meeting.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080711175151.j2k3z1z7&show_article=1

The future of America -

Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html

Ms. Fehlinger says the difficulty in passing legislation "has nothing to do with the science" and all to do with the economic consequences. Technically this is correct, but there are many reputable scientists and legislators who question whether or not the science leads to the conclusion that we are headed toward climatic catastrophe if we do not agressively control carbon dioxide emissions. This is not quite the presentation of both sides.

I can't wait to see what President Obama and the Democratic Congress do about $5 per gallon gas next summer.

mrsund:
Something that GB hasn't done for the last eight years,think. U Tube has a great video of our leader,twirling and twirling around in his chair during a break in the action.At the G-8 summit. Maybe he thought that this was Grade school
and he was in day camp. President Obama will probably use diplomacy first, to heal the wounds from the Bush Fiasco. Than he will go to the middle east, and diffuse their anger towards us, leading to a reduction in Gas prices. At home he will get congress to initiate programs for alternate energy, as we are so far behind Europe.
All of his actions will renew the respect for our country that has been toosed out. Then perhaps he will lessen the economic crisis that most poor and middleclass prople are suffering through. Then he will have a glass of wine and get back to work! What a change it will be. He even believes in Global Warming. Very intellegent man.
KIPP

maybe they should put it up to $10 a gallon then take the balance of the money and buy electric cars for everyone!

Hey Brett , I don't know if Katie reads the comments to her work on this Blog. But if she doesn't would you please pass a message on to her. Tell her "Thank You" for her weekly Headline Earth productions , they're muchly appreciated. And thanks to you as well for the nice work you do on this blog site. There are very few like it on the Web.Dave.

Reply: Thanks Dave, I will do that.

Anon wrote: "People can say what they want, but rising CO2 levels have already changed the climate and will continue doing so for years to come even if emissions are stabilized.

Levels are higher than they have been for millions of years and it looks like the world is heading towards a climate that existed millions of years ago.

The only problem with that is that 6 Billion people didn't inhabit the earth back then. Instead it was a bunch of dinosaurs and every one should know what happened to them."

First, CO2 had nothing to do with the dino's demise. They lived on Earth with CO2 levels 500% to 700% higher than today. You're being disengenuous with your eco hysteria. IF and I contend it's if, IF we humans have raised CO2 some 10s of % or so there's a long way to go to reach the TYPICAL, NATURAL several times higher CO2 levels that Earth's environment itself creates.

So, let's wean ourselves off fossile fuels expeditiously for myriad reasons (national security, economy of the nation, possible far long term CO2 increases) but not so quickly that we crash the very economy that provides innovation money for wind, solar and 21st century nuclear alternatives.

OSLO, Feb. 29 (Xinhua) -- The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

Maybe y'all should try forecasting the past.

Kipp, how do you know what Barack Obama thinks??? He sure has you snowed and thus he is a good politician that has figured out that good speeches with nothing whatsoever to back it up are all that is needed to convince voters to believe in the next candidate. I mean really Kipp, does an intelligent man put his family on Access Hollywood??????? Are you joking???? That is trash t.v for heaven sakes. You have every right to judge Bush for his failures because they are out there to comment about, but to foolishly count on the next politician to save the day is a recipe for disaster.

This video from my perspective was short on substance. It did nothing for me and certainly didn't add anything to the debate. It was a fluff piece.

Jack Macgaugin:

CO2 is about 1/3 of one percent of air. Without CO2, the earth would be minus 18 C. Obviously CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling. As CO2 levels shoot up, so do temperatures. Carbon is both removed from the air, and added to the air by nature.
As the earth warms, carbon sinks (like forests, the permafrost, or the sea floor) become carbon emitters big time. CO2 and methane flood the atmosphere and overwhelm the carbon eco-system. For instance, 55 million years ago a natural runaway global warming episode (nicknamed the PETM) caused mass extinctions. About 500 million years ago the global warming episode was so bad that most life died.
Mankind is triggering the same kind of severe runaway global warming episode by releasing tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas mainly by burning fossil fuels. Do we really want to trigger another "natural" episode of severe warming? Positive feedback loops (where a little warming causes carbon sinks to become carbon emitters, leading to larger warming) are not currently included in most climate models. Particularly, the melting of methane hydrate in permafrost and under the ocean. If you ever live long enough to make decisions like Byrd, then you will be the joke.
KIPP

1) I agree. Regardless of ones view of the science, the economics and potential uneven international application of "solutions" alone should make even an A-CO2-GW proponent give pause.

2) If I believed in the catastrophe of A-CO2-GW, I would conclude that the economic imbalance could create economic and national security catastrophes far outweighing climate changes and that we should focus on doing things that won't kill is in those areas.

3) We should:

a) Encourage energy efficiency (although, don't forget that the increasing price of energy does that on its own and the Gov't should only facilitate and not muck it up)

b) Review/update all laws/regs which could facilitate efficiency (ie. local zoning to allow for concentrated development, mass transit and others to reduce sprawl, telework, (I know there's a lot more..)

c) Drill in the U.S. immediately so we benefit our economy, which will provide the wealth we need to spend to encourage development of alternative energy sources (wind, solar, geo, wave, nuclear, clean coal/shale)

d) Use the energy independence "windfall" to develop long term adaptation strategies. Flooding of city areas could be a boom, because much of that infrastructure needs to be improved anyway. How about preparing large flat areas in advance of the sea level rise to act as engineered wetlands? Lots of ideas that each local area could develop and these great ideas should really inspire our young people to get into science, engineering, biology, climatology, architecture, community design (new discipline I just made up, but you read it here 1st), etc.

4) The problem I have is that I see no compelling evidence that A-CO2-GW is of any consequence. But, after thinking about (d) above, I think that I should start to follow the great lie and say A-CO2-GW is real and it's going to be even worse than we thought. Then our failing educational system will be kick started to inspire our young people to do something big because they will have to.

5) Damn if A-CO2-GW wasn't real, but the silver lining might be that we start the next ice age sooner and that will be the inspiration for the kids, but that seems more depressing.

PhilW1772:
Why don't you study your science? There is no precedent for the quickness in current rise in CO2.280 ppm to 380 ppm in 150 years? And current estimates show 450 ppm in 50 years. Atlantic Upwelling, and salinity levels, is already negatively effected. There is no precedent for the quickness and severity of the current rise in CO2. Even with the meteor strike 65 million years ago. Have you read the IPCC reports? It�s not just business. Ecosystems lost 30%.Increase in hunger do to Dry regions.Deseases like malnutrition, cardio vascular due to ground level ozone. And if the water is not coming down the river from the mountains, agriculture is stressed, more floods and droughts. Welcome to your future.Wake up today!
KIPP

Brett: This weeks topic and presentation by Katie was excellent. I think it has to do with relevancy, and how the world of climate change is being understood by people who can effect change.
Your moderating as usual has been overly fair, and if I didn't know better I would think that you believe in the guy upstairs. Or at least intellegent design. Only instead of ontology, our spirit is in our acts.Thanks, KIPP

Kipp,

When folks begin to think that a new President will change things, look back at all the other Presidents who promised this and that to win an election and then found out that they did not really run the show, when they got in there. Read this link. It puts it all into perspective.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis132.htm

Let us know what you think of the new President, in a couple of years.

Kipp...you should address your concerns to Senator Byrd but first you should be sure your stats are accurate...as I understand the atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and about 1% argon with many trace gases including co2. I believe Your one third of 1 percent is way too high. Minus 18 degrees without co2? Can you or anyone else here guide me to the source of your information? Obviously, I can`t agree or disagree with you on what the climate was 55 and 500 million years ago.

Why are climate change bills are having a tough time getting through Congress?

Plain and simple, the answer is that Congress' approval rating is at what, 9%? These stupid touchee-feelee tree hugger polcies will just sink their approval ratings even further. Because they will harm an already tenuous economy. And, their constituants realize that YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE EARTHS CLIMATE OR THE WEATHER! It is the height of utter elitest arrogance to believe otherwise. The future President better realize this. Otherwise, either one may surpass Bush when it comes to disapproval! These people in Congress need to get their priorities straight and pass legislation that will allow for MORE OIL DRILLING!!!!! NOW!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

I'm quite happy with my life and find a candidate who promises to "change things" quite disturbing.

Raise taxes? Make new restrictions on freedom? How does that make our lives better? Graham is right - many people are whiners who will probably get exactly what they ask for and deserve.

Dear Kipp, Since this is a weather blog I will close with; Global Warming is mostly nonsense since all the facts are not being allowed into the debate. The fact that we have cooled recently which consistently goes unreported in the nightly propaganda report doesn't help your arguement any either. Paul

Jack M:Ice corps are gathered in Antarctica,Greenland,sedimnt layers. and mounatain tops.Using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry,dies and electricity, scientists can look back.An ice core from China 750000 years ago.
Just because Bush, who walks around like he is carrying watermelons under each arm, doesn't mean the next president will do nothing. The country is in a mood for change and the congress might be a little more functional.I work with conservative businessmen all the time and they really want this country to take advantage of new technologies and see a way of making money from this. They know that they will change. They are smarter then you think.
KIPP

Patrick:
Americans are not whiners and Grahmn was wrong for saying that. We are starting to feel a gas shortage. Because of biofuels, the price of groceries are on the rise. Sally May is going bottom up, because we neglected our banking
practices, and we have at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are in a recession, and the only good news is that Global Warming hasn't started in it's full glory.
OIZNUP:
Did you ever believe that there was a hole in the ozone layer? Or was that GLO BULL HOLINESS!!!!
KIPP

KIPP:

What part of the world so you live in?

Seriously, are you up in the mountains and suffer from O2 depravation?

IN order of your July 13 post:

There is no gas shortage.

Food is going up as much due to the cost of shipping as from biofuel production. And UMMM....AGWers see biofuels as the savior of the world. Are you saying that AGWers are for driving up food prices?

Sally May who is she and why is she bottoms up? Do you mean Fannie Mae? It is going belly up because changes that liberals DEMANDED be made in the credit loan process.

Yep, someone is finally doing something about bad people across the planet. Remember, they started it. Unprovoked.

We're not in recession. We are in a slowdown, globally brought about by high fuel prices created in part by liberal, tree-hugging policies limiting drilling and refining. Reply: Do you have proof of that Darren?

Global warming will not be in full glory because it frankly is a made up thing top satisfy an agenda.

Sure there was a hole but who cares?

Wow, those tree-hugging Dems started this whole ban on off-shore drilling eh Oiznop? That crazy democrat George H.W. Bush and his stupid ban... oh wait he was a Repub!

Domestic Drilling is not the solution. It won't make a dent. The main reason this congress has such a low approval rating is because of gas prices, guess what? It is not just their fault. They are just shouldering their blame, so their approval rating means little as they are being blamed for something that has been long in the making.

There is no evidence that domestic drilling will have an immediate or even near future effecto n prices.

Obama will not fix this crisis and I say that as being a person who is more than likely going to vote for him. You want to talk about tipping points, our Government, I believe has reached one. Lobbyists and loopholes run this nation right now.

Let's be honest, can anyone think of a reason why cigarettes are legal? They serve no good purpose. If Congress was smart, they would jack the cigarette tax to obscene levels, and then subsidize gas with that added revenue. And then they would obviously repeal the gas tax. They should jack up the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. They should legalize marijuana too, and tax the heck out of that, subsidize that gas further. And use the rest of this sin tax to research alternative fuels.

notice how global warming is now climate CHANGE...thats because the models were wrong again and they had a 50/50 chance!!!! can someone please explain to me how we are suppose to fight against climate CHANGE?...do we fight to make it hotter or colder?...or do what just start swinging in both directions until we knock something out?...the word CHANGE has been invoked because the doomsdayers have boxed themselves into a corner with their voodoo models...the earth is cooling down and now no one is buying off on their hysteria....however, as expected, it looks like the AGW proponents on this blog think if you say CHANGE enough, you will magically save the tomorrow even though we dont know what it is were fighting to save...the fact is, the only CHANGE i see is more of it being pilfered out of my pocket into some liars...kipp in your rant about climate CHANGE, you forgot to add dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!!!...CHANGE seems to be how you promote one of the presidential candidates...just like AGW, using the "CHANGE" buzzword political smoke and mirror doubletalk and what your candidate really means is he wants to CHANGE with more taxes, higher energy costs, less freedom, and shift the United States (god bless it) towards fascism/communism...climate CHANGE is simply the latest lie to get it done..lets be like the Europeans says it all...peace, bros!

OK Brett, so Kipp can spew his political rhetoric on this blog, but my rebuttal is edited out? Whats up with that? Doesn't sound fair and balanced to me! Paul

Reply: If I recall, your comment went overboard for this blog and it is not the first time. You can ask Kipp, I have edited out several of his comments as well. We need to tone things down. I realize there are comments that have been posted that I probably should not have let through, and that has happened on both sides. I have limited time to read through these comments and I miss things.

Let's get a few things straight, here Veets.

Wow, those tree-hugging Dems started this whole ban on off-shore drilling eh Oiznop?

Never said that.

That crazy democrat George H.W. Bush and his stupid ban... oh wait he was a Repub!

Believe it or not, I agree. However, Bush #1 and the the Republicrats have been to blame over this over the last 30 years. When was the last time we built a moderen oil refinery? Back then the price of oil was not what it is now. There was no need. And China and India were still living in the stone age as underdeveloped nations (in China's case, under full blown communist rule). There is enough blame to go around regarding as to why we are in this mess.

Domestic Drilling is not the solution. It won't make a dent.

REPLY: Then what's your solution? That's the problem I have with you people. You criticize and criticize, but offer no solutions. And don't give me that alternative energy nonsense. If you people think that drilling on our own won't make a dent, what kind of dent will alternative energies make???? And how long will it take for that dent to happen???....Hmmm???...

The main reason this congress has such a low approval rating is because of gas prices, guess what? It is not just their fault.

REPLY: The Demlicans ran in '06 on the guise that they were going to do something about it. They haven't done a BLOODY THING EXCEPT WHINE about CORPORATE GREED AND WINDFALL PROFITS...with their leftist class envy nonsense.....

They are just shouldering their blame, so their approval rating means little as they are being blamed for something that has been long in the making.

REPLY: Their approval ratings mean everything. The American public needs to keep the heat on these people to do what's right for this country. And if they don't, well it won't be long before they get voted out!

There is no evidence that domestic drilling will have an immediate or even near future effecto n prices.

REPLY: Again, what's your solution? And what's your eveidence of this statement. Provide some UNBIASED links that support this statement, and we will believe you.

Obama will not fix this crisis

REPLY: Why not? After all, isn't he the savior??? Isn't he the messiah we have been waiting for????

and I say that as being a person who is more than likely going to vote for him.

REPLY: Big surprise there.

You want to talk about tipping points, our Government, I believe has reached one. Lobbyists and loopholes run this nation right now.

REPLY: Especially the enviroMENTAL lobby, which again is why we are in this mess.

Let's be honest, can anyone think of a reason why cigarettes are legal? They serve no good purpose.

REPLY: I agree that cigarettes sevre no good purpose, but it's a legal substance. What are you going to do. Have everything that you don't like banned?

If Congress was smart, they would jack the cigarette tax to obscene levels, and then subsidize gas with that added revenue.

REPLY: Oh that's it, Tax everything you don't like. Spoken like a true lefty.

And then they would obviously repeal the gas tax.

REPLY: Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

They should jack up the tax on cigarettes and alcohol. They should legalize marijuana too, and tax the heck out of that, subsidize that gas further. And use the rest of this sin tax to research alternative fuels.

REPLY: Tax Tax Tax, and research alternative fuels. Meanwhile, the price of gas goes to $7.00 a gallon if not higher. Great Ideas, Veets. Well done......What a CROCK!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

Brett:

I do indeed have proof that tree-hugging policies have in part directly led to the higher fuel prices. Higher fuel prices have, in turn, caused everything we use in society to cost more.

This entire economic slowdown can be blamed in part upon the policies, desires and agendas heavily promoted by people who actively believe in and/or are concerned about AGW. The seeds of these issues were sown in the late 70's, through the 80's and 90's. It is only just now that they are bearing fruit. Look no further than to Obama. He is the very definition of liberal. And HE is quite satisfied with the price of a gallon of gas. His ONLY issue with it is that it happened quickly. I guess a year is quick to a politician.

Reply: So where's the proof? What does Obama have to do with it? He's not president and he is just a junior senator right now.

VEETS:

Domestic drilling would resolve prices and put a big dent in terrorism issues in as little as 3 months. Simply put, the very act of stating that we WILL be drilling would drop oil prices by $40 in a week or two. Usable oil could be on the market in as little as 6 months. That would lower prices again. The recent act by W to remove the bann is symbolic since CONGRESS must remove it as well. They won't do it because they are too bent on trying to harm Bush.

And Yes, Bush's dad put the federal ban on. He frankly was not much of a conservative and he bowed to the demands of the environmental lobby. Besides, he thought that by helping the Saudis out, they would scratch our back. Big mistake. The only back the Saudis have is their own. No problem with that, that's their perogitive but big mistake if you want to trust them. And besides, stuff changes in 17 years.

Oil and gas prices are directly the result of congress of yesteryears. This congress is taking the brunt for the actions of the past. Their inaction though is prolonging the problem.

Why switch to discussing CIGS? Don't you decry the outlandish tactics of the Bush Administration, you know, taking away rights and all? So, then, why limit a person's choice to do something byut outlawing CIGS?

And I would say, that even as a non-smoker, the taxes are outlandish. Here in Ohio, I believe it is up to 2.50 a pack when the cost of a pack is $4.60 or so. Seems like a lot to me.

Maybe they should have a sugar tax, and a fat tax. That's a sin too right?

Oiz,

Why is it wrong for my person to beliefs to influence what I think. Is that not their purpose.

Why not tax cigarettes to high heaven, as well as alcohol. These are vices, right, purely option for people, thus paying this tax would be an option. This extra tax would be used specifically to subsidize gas costs. In other words, gas prices would go down. Perhaps people then would not want top pay thie hefty price for these vices, so they would quit them. This could help what we have to pay out for medicare or for government insurance benefits. But that would just be a side effect, a possible side effect.

YOu complain about taxes, at least complain then about spending too.

Why are you so against alternative energy? That is a solution, an actual fix to the problem. Yeah it is long term, but we need new energy sources. Oil won't last forever, yeah it will last for a good chunk of time, but not forever. As the supply goes down, the price will go up, evenetually supply and demand will take over.

There is a chance we are waiting on an energy source that is not yet thought up. Why are you against that? It could be a clean, renewable, and cheap energy source. It could be cheaper than oil ever was. So why are you so against me suggesting finding it? Before oil was an energy source, I am sure no one thought they would have an energy source that was cheap (for a time.)

That is the thing about technology, there was a time when people thought the cassette tape could not be improved upon. Now we can store like a bajillion times the amount of music on something smaller than a cassette tape.

Why am I wrong to suggest research on that.

I think my idea needs tweaking, but it helps on the short term by subsidizing gas prices, and works toward a long term fix.

Your method of off-shore drilling does neither very well. It certainly does nothing for the long term, and the short term is debateable.

"And then they would obviously repeal the gas tax.

REPLY: Robbing Peter to pay Paul."

They would repeal the gas tax because they are subsidizing gas. They should tack on the federal gas tax on to cigs and alcohol. And then add more. Taking off the federal gas tax would take off .18 per gallon I believe. If Peter is getting robbed, it is his own choice then since it is a sin tax. Peter can stop being robbed by stop buying cigarettes and alcohol.

"REPLY: I agree that cigarettes sevre no good purpose, but it's a legal substance. What are you going to do. Have everything that you don't like banned?"

Thats a large stretch don't you think. But to be kept legal ebcause of a strong lobby is a bad reason, dont you think? So what if it is my opinion they should be banned? Why do you criticize me having an opinion? Cause I am a free-thinker? Do you have any ideas you want to see implemented? Share them with me, and I will turn your statement against those ideas real quick.

"Obama will not fix this crisis

REPLY: Why not? After all, isn't he the savior??? Isn't he the messiah we have been waiting for????
"

Those are your words, not mine. I have never once said that, I have actually said a couple times on here that I may not vote for Obama because of his energy policy being so drastic, but you have chosen to lump me in with the far-left for some reason.

I am actually just left of center, I prefer not to label myself under party lines. But you are a generalist. A very passionate generalist albeit. You are so caught up in your own beliefs, that when someone expresses an idea different than yours, you label them as a left wing nut job.

Do you consider me a left wing nut job when my post is questioning AGW?

Well if putting the world in a stark prospective without using profanity doesn't pass your standards then you can rest assured you will no longer recieve my insight. Your not worthy and I don't need your naive stamp of approval. Accuweathers' bias is obvious. I only wanted to counter that bias. Paul

Darren,

I am not sure Sugar is exactly a sin, I brought up cigs as an idea to alleviate gas taxes.

Remember when you said you had proof? You did not give any proof, you gave your opinion and said some very vague statements. That does not constitute proof, cause of it did, I would have proof of a lot of things.

See, what is it with you republicans. You assume so much about me. It is ridiculous. I decry Bush? I voted for Bush, twice. As I stated before, I am a free-thinker, I vote for who I like best, no matter the party.

"And besides, stuff changes in 17 years."

Must no change that much, GWB extended the executive ban on off-shore drilling through 2012 I believe. The Congress does not need to harm Bush, they know that off-shore drilling wont make much of a difference. There is no way the oil we would drill off-shore would hit markets in 6 months from the start. That is an outlandish claim, and not even Bush would agree with you, the Executive Office has said it would take a couple years. Prices would not change within 3 months, those are totally unsupported claims you are making. They are outlandish too.

Obama likes gas prices where they are?? I assume you have a link waiting to show where he said that. Actually I know you dont, if he did say that, if he was ok with gas prices being where they are, that would be all over the news and every single Republican commercial would be showing that. It would be a death blow to his campaign if he had said that, and since he is 8 points up in the polls, I know he did not say that.

I assume then, that you think he is ok with gas prices the way they are because he does not support off shore drilling, so you ASSUME he is ok with gas prices the way they are. He actually just knows that off-shore drillings effect on gas prices is a pipe-dream.

So, as I explained to Oiznop, please do not label me, stereotype me, and put words in my mouth. It is as if you both seem that anyone who does not agree with you is a far left pinko commie. (reply: Hey, that sounds familiar!)

VEETS:

Sad you took it that I was labeling you. Not the intent at all, you in fact are one of many intelligent bloggers the site has been attracting lately. You are indeed a "free-thinker" and you do present comments upon both sides of the issue. I like that. I also like your comments and lines of discussion.

The comment about you decrying the Bush Administration is not a label. I too voted for him twice and am ticked about some of the stuff that has been done. And more ticked about the stuff that was NOT done. And please don't call me a Republican. Based upon the current political situation, I am thinking of turning in my republican card. Don't get excited anybody, Obama is worse than McCain and I can't see voting for McCain. I'll probably write my dog in.

Actually, GWB did not re-up the ban, he did away with it. Oil prices came down. Just like I said it would.

Granted, Mark presents a different reason for the decline but clearly I'm right. LOL Actually who knows what the reason is. I don't, but the idea that the lift affected the market is not flawed because the rise is due to "guessing" the future.

As far as Oil being produced in the market in short order, my proof is articles I have seen from industry insiders who know how fast the oil could get into the system. Heck, I've heard as little as 3 months. Problem though, there is are not enough refineries to do anything about it, so the oil would sit "piled" up. That is the real issue and directly the result of environmental legislation and regulation. Hell, I've had small ancillary projects at manufacturing plants held up by EPA mumbo jumbo. The general public has no idea how fouled up an EPA representative can make a project with the twist of their pen. And, the EPA people have real "attitudes" in anything they do.

Proof about Obama, well, he did an interview discussing his take on gas prices and he said that the price is fine, it just came up too quickly. I believe it was a month or so ago. And he has said he would raise the gas tax to help further reduce consumption. His words as recorded.

As far as proof of stuff in general, I wrote a long comment to Brett about it as he asked the same question. I asked him to NOT print it because it is far away from climate discussion. Just a quick comment here, the proof is not an overtly visible direct "Daisy Chain" of events. They are related items directed toward a goal and what you might consider to be esoteric and likely would not constitute what you would like to say is proof. Fine by me.

But you watch, if Congress gets smart (I got 10:1 odds they won't) and lifts the drilling ban, oil would be back to $60 a barrel so fast, it would make Gore's head spin.

Darren I would take that bet on $60 dollar barrel if Congress lifted the ban. I would even give you odds.

Are you sure GWB did not extend the ban?
I am pretty sure I had read that he did.

Yep, pretty sure

In fact, I think Congress is permitting "test" drilling on a small area in ANWR.

The spin coming out of Congress on how they want to "look" like they want to drill. Kinda funny in a warped way.

Veets:
Sorry I did not respond earlier, as I am trying to limit my posting on internet blogs from work. Because, after all, it is work. Now then, on to it:

Oiz,
Why is it wrong for my person to beliefs to influence what I think. Is that not their purpose.

REPLY: Veets, you can believe in anything you like. You can believe in rainbows and unicorns. You can believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It�s a free country (er�.um �yeah). Don�t expect everyone to fall in lock step with your beliefs.

Why not tax cigarettes to high heaven, as well as alcohol.

REPLY: If you take a walk I�ll tax your feet. If you drive a car I�ll tax the street. If you try to sit, I�ll tax your seat. If it gets to COLD, I�ll tax the heat��.YOI!! STOP WITH MORE TAXES ALREADY!!! By doing this, you are singling out a particular group of people. Those who smoke. Those who drink. Where I live, they (being the local corrupt DEMOCRAT machine) are taxing poured drinks in bars and restaurants to supposedly subsidize a corrupt mass transit authority. That may actually go on strike later this year. Do you really think that is fair? Do you really think that is fair to the people running the eating and drinking establishments, that they are forced to subsidize an already incompetent transit authority? Do you think that is fair to the person who likes to enjoy a glass of Italian wine or Belgian beer on occasion, to subsidize these people? No. Just like it�s not fair for people who smoke and drink to subsidize gas costs, subsidize alternative fuel research, or subsidize the glo-BULL warming myth. I am sorry, but more taxation is not the answer. Not when the solution to this issue is right under our noses.

These are vices, right, purely option for people, thus paying this tax would be an option.

REPLY: An optional tax? Is that like a �temporary� tax? LOL! What planet do you live on, man?

This extra tax would be used specifically to subsidize gas costs. In other words, gas prices would go down. Perhaps people then would not want top pay the hefty price for these vices, so they would quit them.

REPLY: In a free society, that�s not for you decide, or for the government to implement, at least under the way this country was supposed to be. That is for the individual to make those decisions for themselves. It�s called individual LIBERTY.

This could help what we have to pay out for medicare or for government insurance benefits. But that would just be a side effect, a possible side effect.

REPLY: Is that like clintons �tax cut we can pay for?�

YOu complain about taxes, at least complain then about spending too.

REPLY: I do. Spending is tops on my list of reasons as to why I have considered changing my party affiliation from Republican to either Independent, or Libertarian. Ya know, that extremist AMERICAN party, where fiscal conservatism and CLASSIC liberalism are the themes? GASP!!! How radical.

Why are you so against alternative energy?

REPLY: Because it�s unproven. Oil is in every fabric of our lives. You people need to wake up to this fact. Without oil, life will stop. Dead in it�s tracks. Coal and nuclear energy are probably the second and third most reliable. But we can�t have coal. The radical leftist envrios will whine and pitch a fit that it pollutes to much. Can�t have nuclear either. The radical lefty enviros will be out there with their �Hell No! We Won�t Glow!� signs, like in 1979 after TMI. I was 13 years old at that time, and those news clips are still fresh in my memory. There is no satisfying these people. And solar and wind power are a joke. What happens on a cloudy day? What happens where there is no wind? And you didn�t answer my question. If you alternative energy supporters think that drilling on our own won't make a dent, what kind of dent will your alternative energies make???? And how long will it take for that dent to happen???....Let�s hear it Veets. I am all for alternatives, IF they are proven. Give us a time frame since you are so high on them.

That is a solution, an actual fix to the problem. Yeah it is long term, but we need new energy sources. Oil won't last forever, yeah it will last for a good chunk of time, but not forever.

REPLY: Prove it. Provide us with some unbiased links that are not by guys like Paul Ehrlich and James Hansen that say this. That are not more gloom and doom fear mongering. Everything is a crisis with you guys. It has become quite old. Especially when the media feeds off of this gorg. The oil is eventually going to run out. Oh, Please!

As the supply goes down, the price will go up, eventually supply and demand will take over.

REPLY: You are talking about the supply going down? There is abundant supply. But we have to wait for those 9% approved members of CONGRESS to get off their back sides and allow us to get at it!

There is a chance we are waiting on an energy source that is not yet thought up. Why are you against that?

REPLY: Not thought up yet? You mean we have to wait for this savior energy source while gas prices skyrocket to $10.00 a gallon?

It could be a clean, renewable, and cheap energy source. It could be cheaper than oil ever was. So why are you so against me suggesting finding it?

REPLY: It�s a free country (er�um�yeah). Go ahead and find it! I wish you good luck. That�s the American way. WE NEED TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL IN THE MEAN TIME. Why are YOU so against that?

Before oil was an energy source, I am sure no one thought they would have an energy source that was cheap (for a time.)

REPLY: It was cheap because China and India, two of the most heavily populated countries on earth, are no longer living in the stone age.

That is the thing about technology, there was a time when people thought the cassette tape could not be improved upon. Now we can store like a bajillion times the amount of music on something smaller than a cassette tape.
Why am I wrong to suggest research on that.

REPLY: Again, repeating. It�s a free country. Go ahead and find it! WE NEED TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL IN THE MEAN TIME. Why are YOU so against that?

I think my idea needs tweaking, but it helps on the short term by subsidizing gas prices, and works toward a long term fix.
Your method of off-shore drilling does neither very well. It certainly does nothing for the long term, and the short term is debateable.

REPLY: Oh, Mule Muffins, Veets. The mere mention that the USA will start drilling for it�s own oil will shake up the world commodity markets. And send the OPEC criminals scurrying! Bush announced this week that he has lifted the executive ban. The price of a barrel of oil came down $40.00! Good grief, I wish you naysayers would get a clue.

They would repeal the gas tax because they are subsidizing gas. They should tack on the federal gas tax on to cigs and alcohol. And then add more. Taking off the federal gas tax would take off .18 per gallon I believe. If Peter is getting robbed, it is his own choice then since it is a sin tax. Peter can stop being robbed by stop buying cigarettes and alcohol.

REPLY: Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax!!!!!

"REPLY: I agree that cigarettes serve no good purpose, but it's a legal substance. What are you going to do. Have everything that you don't like banned?"

That�s a large stretch don't you think. But to be kept legal because of a strong lobby is a bad reason, don�t you think? So what if it is my opinion they should be banned? Why do you criticize me having an opinion?

REPLY: Because you opinion is based on emotion and distain for things that you can�t control, be it our energy sources or the climate, or whatever. Let�s ban everything Veets doesn�t like for the common good. Oil, cigarettes, french fries, grilling steaks on the barbie, or whatever else. Or let�s levy taxes on people who use/do these things. Like in Australia, where they are jacking up the taxes to disuade people from driving. Do you not think that has a negative affect on productivity? On the economy? On people�s lives? Veets, banning or taxing everything you consider �evil� that is out there is not going to help the situation. This is a Free Country (er�um�yeah). If people want to smoke and eat trans fats, it�s their funeral. Let it go.

Cause I am a free-thinker? Do you have any ideas you want to see implemented? Share them with me, and I will turn your statement against those ideas real quick.

REPLY: DRILL DRILL DRILL DRILL DRILL�Go ahead and research your alternative fuels. That�s fine. The American tax payer needs relief now. Not 10 or 20 years down the road via �research or alternatives.� Drill NOW! And forget about preserving that mosquito refuge up there in Alaska, and the plight of the redwoods.

"Obama will not fix this crisis

REPLY: Why not? After all, isn't he the savior??? Isn't he the messiah we have been waiting for????

Those are your words, not mine.

REPLY: They are not my words. They are the actions of a mentally and intellectually challenged populace who have become enamored (via the biased media) with this empty suit who is running for President. Who doesn�t even qualify to be dog catcher let alone President. Who has a line of B.S. Who flip flops on the issues. Who spews the usual liberal guilt montra (we can�t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want�yadda yadda yadda). And who keeps/has kept company with some very questionable people over the years. But that�s OK, Veets. You go ahead and vote for the most merciful one. You and all who do will get what you deserve.

I have never once said that, I have actually said a couple times on here that I may not vote for Obama because of his energy policy being so drastic, but you have chosen to lump me in with the far-left for some reason.

REPLY: Wait a minute. WHAT? You said in your diatribe that you WERE more than likely going to vote for him! You�re a bigger flip flopper than he is, Veets.

I am actually just left of center,

REPLY: Why is that? I have often wondered what makes the �left of center� mind tick. And believe what they believe. Do splain, as I am all ears. And what is it that you see in Barack The Magic Obama?

I prefer not to label myself under party lines. But you are a generalist. A very passionate generalist albeit.

REPLY: I am passionate about America. And seeing America succeed. And seeing Americans of all faiths, races, and national backgrounds succeed. And NOT at the hands of the Government, or any political party either.

You are so caught up in your own beliefs, that when someone expresses an idea different than yours, you label them as a left wing nut job. Do you consider me a left wing nut job when my post is questioning AGW?

REPLY: I consider anyone who buys into unproven junk science data and unproven forms of energy, and unproven things in general not as a nut job, but as being grossly misinformed. And one who buys into this nonsense via emotional reaction. I consider them easily persuaded (again via the bias in the media) that if we �don�t act now, the world will come to an end.� While in the process, those who implement these fears feed their political and social agendas. Those who implement these fears are the nut-jobs. Those who buy into them fall in unison as stooges. That�s a shame. A very sad testimony as to the direction this country is headed. Glad I was able to respond, Veets. You'll forgive me if I say that I am spent on this subject.

Reply: I am spent reading and editing your comment Oiznop. Let's keep it shorter next time and I remind you again about your names for some public people that are not appropriate for this blog. Next time I will not be so generous.

Oiznop - you can disagree with someone without degrading them. People who embrace alternative energy sources most likely do so because they have researched them, feel that they are viable and want this country to be free of intimidation from the likes of OPEC countries Iran and Venezuela.

I hardly consider myself to be misinformed. I don't get all of my information from ABC news or Al Gore. I've researched the energy sector exhaustively and based on that, feel that alternatives are viable, in a gradual transition from oil/gas to an electric based society.

Any transition must include nuclear and yes the oil/gas reserves the we currently own. When I talk about energy alternatives, I am talking about replacing the 40% of our oil that comes from the middle east. I'm talking about replacing OPEC oil. It is a known fact that we don't have enough untapped oil reserves to 100% replace OPEC oil.

We need alternatives to become independent of the terrorists that are holding us hostage right now. That's why I embrace alternatives.

T. Boone Pickens is one oilman who has said that we can't drill our way out of this mess. He's an oil company exec. Last time I checked he ain't Jim Hansen.

For America to succeed, we need to be independent of OPEC oil. How do we do that by more drilling alone? We don't have the oil. If we had the oil, that was easy to drill for, why would we still be buying it from OPEC?

Bush announced this week that he has lifted the executive ban. The price of a barrel of oil came down $40.00!

Ahh No! The price of oil has come down $16 per barrel as of today. Mainly due to lower demand and fears about the US economy sliding even further in the wake of the Indymac failure. Are you telling me that that is all made up by the media?

One last thing Oiznop - Humans have survived, prospered, explored and tamed this entire planet during the thousands of years -BEFORE OIL WAS DISCOVERED IN 1859. Civiization would not end without oil. Unless of course, we don't develop and use alternative forms of energy.

If you want to tack this onto my last post Brett, that would be OK with me. Thanks and have a great weekend.

Oiznop - you can disagree with someone without degrading them.

REPLY: Show me where I degraded anyone. Veets' ideas are unproven and this country can't afford to wait for alternative energys to be proven. The demand for oil is to great now, and this country has to fuel it's vehicles and heat/air condition it's homes. And run it's businesses. How are we goig to do that if we wait for these savior alternatives to be proven on the world stage? We can't afford to wait any longer.

People who embrace alternative energy sources most likely do so because they have researched them, feel that they are viable and want this country to be free of intimidation from the likes of OPEC countries Iran and Venezuela.

REPLY: Fine. Let the market decide if they are viable. My guess is that they won't be. We must drill and not stop ever again.

I hardly consider myself to be misinformed. I don't get all of my information from ABC news or Al Gore. I've researched the energy sector exhaustively and based on that, feel that alternatives are viable, in a gradual transition from oil/gas to an electric based society.

REPLY: Let the markets decide. What bothers me is guys like Gore want to shove alternatives down our throats through government mandates. Drop all fossil fuels in 10 years. More evidence that this fool wants the American economy to suffer so he can regain his power in the public sector. If he were any kind of American, he would agree to let the markets make those determinations.

Any transition must include nuclear and yes the oil/gas reserves the we currently own. When I talk about energy alternatives, I am talking about replacing the 40% of our oil that comes from the middle east. I'm talking about replacing OPEC oil. It is a known fact that we don't have enough untapped oil reserves to 100% replace OPEC oil.

REPLY: Maybe not. But we do have enough to sustain ourselves. If only Congress would do what's right.

We need alternatives to become independent of the terrorists that are holding us hostage right now. That's why I embrace alternatives.

REPLY: We need to drill for our own oil to be come independent of the terrorists. If you want to research alternatives, fine. No one has answered my question. If drilling our way out of it is not the answer because it will be 10 years before there is an impact on prices, how long will it take before (forced) alternative sources have an impact on prices? I am still waiting for an answer from you alternative energy adovcates. No one seems to want to answer it for some reason.

For America to succeed, we need to be independent of OPEC oil. How do we do that by more drilling alone? We don't have the oil.

REPLY: Prove it. Prove to us with an unbiased link from someone who is not in the most merciful Obama's back pocket that there is a shortage and I will believe you.

Bush announced this week that he has lifted the executive ban. The price of a barrel of oil came down $40.00!

Ahh No! The price of oil has come down $16 per barrel as of today. Mainly due to lower demand and fears about the US economy sliding even further in the wake of the Indymac failure. Are you telling me that that is all made up by the media?

REPLY: I stand corrected about the actual price, however, you can't even begin to tell me that the announcement of lifiting the exec ban on drilling didn't have some affect on the market value. If congress does the same thing, which they won't because they are idiots, the price will come down even further.

Oiznop,

Proven/known world oil reserves - see attached link.

United States - 29 billion barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

We (the United States) use 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day. That is 7.3 billion barrels per year. (20 million x 365 days) Divide 29 billion by 7.3 billion, equals 3.97 years. Our proven oil reserves would last 4 years without importing oil from OPEC. Or Canada. Or Mexico.

Hey, I have an open mind. If you have a link showing that there is enough drillable oil under the US to replace all middle eastern oil, I'd love to see it.

Gary B:

Actually, going by those numbers, the world would be out of oil in just 10 years or so.

And that is the same methodology I have seen for 30 years.

Fact is, no one knows how much oil the world goes through in a day, nor, much more importantly, how much oil is out there.

As far as the US, the more important oil deposit is in the shales in the dakotas. We tap that, and the middle east can be written off.

Oiz,

Looks like you were misinformed on how much oil has gone down.

Bush was smart, he waited until some info came out that would cause the oil price to go down before lifting the ban. Why else would he have waited so long to lift the ban? He wanted it to look like his words caused it, they didnt.

It is futile to debate with you because you have labeled me as part of the extreme left, enviro nut jobs, etc etc etc. Of which I am not.

And you said it yourself, I never said I was going to vote for Obama, I have said I will probably, but there is a good chance I have not.

Obama's flip-flops are because he has garnered new knowledge. Kind of like if someone came out today with some inescapable, unbreakable, totally 100% true proof of AGW, you would be foolish not to "flip-flop" and believe in it. I would for sure believe in it. Of course you probably think I do now, judging from your words, but again you would be wrong. I have never come across as that on the boards.

How bout we go the other way around here, why dont you prove that if we drill in the ANWR or off-shore that there is enough to amke a difference, and that it would make a difference, and that it would make an effective difference. Now since you wouldnt allwo me to reference certain people (when have I referenced Hansen?) you cannot reference any report from oil companies, or people who are tied to oil companies, or that have any interest in oil at all.

As to this left of center mind trick, I dont get it, do you think there is a gene that makes someone Republican and another one that makes someone Democrat? I am a free-thinker, sometimes I agree with what would be viewed as the Democratic belief, sometimes I believe in the Republican belief. Thats why I voted for Bush twice. Perhaps you will calm down a bit when you stop seeing this world as black and white.

Now do I truly believe that, not entirely, but it it holds some water for sure.

Darren,

I agree. It is real hard to get a firm number of what oil is left out there. It is said that the most accurate numbers are the US oil reserves. All other reserves, except for maybe Canada, are highly dependent on government entities or oil cartels for their accuracy. What I mean, some countries make up a number for strategic or political reasons.

I have studied the Bakken and Green River oil shale areas and would love to see it developed. Those areas supposedly contain more oil than all of the middle east.

I'm not against drilling our own wells, but I can't agree that it will solve our OPEC oil dependence problem. Alternatives, Nuclear, conservation, fuel efficiency, oil shale, coal gasification, could all be part of a comprehensive energy policy that would cut our ties with OPEC, IMHO.

I'm strictly talking energy independence, not climate change. I realize that some alternatives to oil cause more polution. But, if CO2 is not causing warming, then it should not be a concern.

Veets - nothing wrong with being a free thinker. This country needs more people like you.

Obama's flip-flops are because he has garnered new knowledge.

REPLY: Oh that is a bold faced crock! He's garnered new knowledge. Just like John Kerry vote for it before he voted against it. Just like the most merciful Obama "garnered new knowlege" when he was hanging out with ACORN and the likes of William Ayres. Like when he "garnered new knowlege" about his pastor's 20+ years worth of all loving all compassionate sermons? Obama is the typical politican. He will say whatever it is he needs to say to get your vote. Quit trying to make excuses for these people, will ya?

LINK REGARDING ANWR:

http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php

Any more questions?

And you still haven't answered my original questions, Veets. If drilling our way out of it is not the answer because it will be 10 years before there is an impact on prices, how long will it take before (forced) alternative sources you guys are high on have an impact on prices? I am still waiting. If you say what you say you are, then why won't you answer and not be like Mark (who still has yet to explain to this blog what kind of vehicle he drives)?

Drill Early, Drill Often, Drill YESTERDAY. And for get about the glo-BULL warming lie, and the plight of the caribou!

Oiz, that is a trick question and you know it. There is no answer to that question. The best answer for a hypothetical situation is still hypothetical at best, right?

I am behind a firewall here at work, my wife was kind enough to copy and paste your link.

"According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered"

Using Gary B's numbers of 20 mil per day, that won't even last a month. I doubt OPEC is afraid of that.

"DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made."

3.5 billion barrels? That is half a year. 5%?
Woohoo!

" In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Coastal Plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil "

COULD supply us for 2.5 years. Let me repeat the word COULD. Just like CO2 could be causing our warming right? How much weight should we give this word 'could'?

"DOI estimates that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more). "

There is that word could a couple more times! Recoverable resources that will last 1.25 years at the most? Do you think OPEC is very afraid of this vast oil resource. They would probably love us to drill there, enjoy our 2 years of domestic oil, the reprieve on oil prices that 'could' come might slow down our search for a new energy source, so when we come back to needing foreign oil very soon, our dependance is more, and they know we do not have ANWR to fall back on ever again.

Oiz, that is a trick question and you know it. There is no answer to that question. The best answer for a hypothetical situation is still hypothetical at best, right?

REPLY: I like how when you guys are put on the spot when you can't answer a question by using that "It's a loaded question" excuse. It's a very ligitmate and question, Veets. If you are so sure that alternatives are the answer, like the Chuck Shumers and Boone Pickens of the world, and drilling in ANWR and off our shores is not, then answer it. The "loaded question" response is a cop out. And is sounds to me like you are not as confident in those alternative sources than you would lead us to believe.

As for your response to ANWR, factor in off shore drilling, and more drilling in the interior, and the impact will be even greater. People like you, though, Veets don't want to believe that because of the evil profits that the oil companies will make. Why is that so troubling to you guys? I just don't get the logic of some of you "free thinkers."

By the by. Old T-Boone Pickens wants to fill up cars with natural gas. Great idea! And when the first violent automobile accident happens with one of those vehicles involved, the explosion that takes place will take out half a neighborhood. Like I said, great idea!

Save the planet from hot air. Muzzle T-Boone Pickens!

Brett: I am not sure if this went through with my chincy dial-up, so I am re-submitting. Please don't post twice, Thanks.

Oiz, that is a trick question and you know it. There is no answer to that question. The best answer for a hypothetical situation is still hypothetical at best, right?

REPLY: I like how you guys, when you can't answer a queston, use that "it's a loaded question" excuse. It's a very ligitmate and question, Veets. If you are so sure that alternatives are the answer, like the Chuck Shumers and Boone Pickens of the world, and drilling in ANWR and off our shores is not, then answer it. Your "loaded question" response is a cop out, Veets. And is sounds to me like you are not as confident in those alternative sources than you would lead us to believe.

As for your response to ANWR, factor in off shore drilling, and more drilling in the interior, and the impact will be even greater. People like you, though, Veets don't want to believe that because of the evil profits that the oil companies will make. Why is that such a problem with you "free thinkers?"

By the way, T-Boone Pickens want's to fill up cars with natural gas. Great idea! And when the first violent accident involving a vehicle filled with natural gas takes place, the explosion will take out half a neighborhood. Lke I said, what a great idea!

Save the planet from hot air. Muzzle T-Boone Pickens!!!!

Oiz,

Obviously we do not have this alternative energy source yet, and being that I was not blessed with the ability to see into the future, how in the heck do you expect me to be able to answer your question?

It is entirely possible that tomorrow someone could stumble on the perfect renewable energy source, not likely, but not impossible.

It is possible it may take 50 years. There is no way of knowing. So given that knowledge I just gave you, how do you expect me to answer your trick question?

Will this answer suffice:

"Sometime between right now and 5 minutes after this new alternative energy source is found."

"People like you, though, Veets don't want to believe that because of the evil profits that the oil companies will make. Why is that such a problem with you "free thinkers?"

Oiz, you like to assume a lot about me, find somewhere on this board that I have condemned the oil companies for their profits. I have actually defended their profits, but you have this horrible notion about me even after being told multiple times that I am not this extreme left wing person that you think I am.

I am very confident that an alternative energy will be found. Imagine the people before oil, they probably never thought they would have any thing that would be able to do what oil does. Well I believe an alternative energy source will be found. And I think it will be found sooner than later. Now quit with the bully tactics, I am much too savvy to fall for them. Your little attacks on me using cop outs are unproven, and hold no water, you are just trying to bully me into an answer that we both know does not exist right now, you arent fooling anyone, you arent impressing anyone, so give it up, it is not a cop out. It would be like me asking you for the precise day that oil will run out, you cannot give a very specific answer, you cannot even give a 10 year range with much accuracy on that. Would you like me to pull a page out of your playbook and try and bully you into answering the question "In what year will oil run out and why?"

Obviously we do not have this alternative energy source yet, and being that I was not blessed with the ability to see into the future, how in the heck do you expect me to be able to answer your question?

REPLY: Cheez Whiz there Veets, I thought we did? After all, why go out and promote the wind and the sun and the rain and the gerbels, etc. to the great lengths that people do?

It is entirely possible that tomorrow someone could stumble on the perfect renewable energy source, not likely, but not impossible.

REPLY: Again, that's fine. But do you really think that they have the versitility that oil does? I think that is for the market to decide. Not the government through mandates. That's what this is all about. This being the whole "go green" rhetoric. That's what gets my knickers in a snit.

It is possible it may take 50 years. There is no way of knowing. So given that knowledge I just gave you, how do you expect me to answer your trick question?

REPLY: Now then. Next trick question. Do you believe the (UP)Chuck Shumers and the Barbara Boxers of the world when they say the same things about oil drilling?

Will this answer suffice:

"Sometime between right now and 5 minutes after this new alternative energy source is found."

"People like you, though, Veets don't want to believe that because of the evil profits that the oil companies will make. Why is that such a problem with you "free thinkers?"

Oiz, you like to assume a lot about me, find somewhere on this board that I have condemned the oil companies for their profits. I have actually defended their profits, but you have this horrible notion about me even after being told multiple times that I am not this extreme left wing person that you think I am.

REPLY: I want to believe you, Veets, but after you said that you were "more than likly going to vote for Obama," I began to doubt it. Voting for a guy who never met a tax he didn't like is not the answer.

I am very confident that an alternative energy will be found. Imagine the people before oil, they probably never thought they would have any thing that would be able to do what oil does. Well I believe an alternative energy source will be found. And I think it will be found sooner than later. Now quit with the bully tactics, I am much too savvy to fall for them. Your little attacks on me using cop outs are unproven, and hold no water, you are just trying to bully me into an answer that we both know does not exist right now, you arent fooling anyone, you arent impressing anyone, so give it up, it is not a cop out.

REPLY: Just trying to get to the truth, Veets. Sorry you interepert thing this way.

It would be like me asking you for the precise day that oil will run out, you cannot give a very specific answer, you cannot even give a 10 year range with much accuracy on that. Would you like me to pull a page out of your playbook and try and bully you into answering the question "In what year will oil run out and why?"

REPLY: Veets, I can answer that question very easily. The earth takes care of her own. Through it's own natual processes. With her climate through change (that we can't control) and with her geology through change (boy, I sound like Obama!). Anything to the contrary is fear mongering. Honestly I can't say that the earth will not ever run out of oil, but, and again, this is theory, the earth will take care of her own. I am confident with that. And hey, if alternatives prove to be viable, then so be it. Let the market decide that. Develop them to the point where the market can decide it. And in the mean time, DRILL! Why is that so bad? Because, according to the Shumers, Boxers, Pelosis and Reids of the world, that would make BUSH LOOK GOOD! Can't have that.

By the by, going down to 56F tonight for an overnight low. In July. It's getting mighty old.

"REPLY: Cheez Whiz there Veets, I thought we did? After all, why go out and promote the wind and the sun and the rain and the gerbels, etc. to the great lengths that people do?"

Oiz, please do not lump my thought in with other people, or what you think Democrats think, or anything like that. You constantly do that to me, ignore my thoughts and put some thoughts of other people in their place. I grow tired quickly of your attacks on my thoughts by referencing ideas that are not mine but you seem to have lumped mine in with them. I do not think wind will be answer, I certainly hope not because wind farms are ugly. Solar energy has more potential than wind, but we would need much better ways to harness that energy before it would be feasible. That does not mean that in a year someone will figure out a way to accumulate and store gobs of solar energy with a panel no bigger than a sheet of paper, but soemthing like that could happen. I truly believe that there will eventually exist some alternative energy that you or I could not even think of right now. Maybe some day, cars will run on 2% milk, who knows. You can never discount technology and human ingenuity.

Tell the oil companies to start drilling on their leased land, they obviously took that land for a reason.

Tell the oil companies to start drilling on their leased land, they obviously took that land for a reason.

REPLY: **SIGH** Veets, I grow weary of this thread. I really wish you hadn't stated the above here, because now I have to respond by saying the following: Did you ever stop to think that mabye on the leased land you speak of, that it might have been explored already and there is no oil there? We need to open up ANWR and the the off shore rigs. Where the oil is. In large amounts. Do that, and research your alternatives simultaniously. And this country and the planet will be better off because of it.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Oiz,

I have considered that, but I have read things that say otherwise.