First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Disappointment in Copenhagen
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The next climate summit really needs to talk about the falsehoods of the AGW theory. The climate gate emails happened, the IPCC has admitted fraud in their report, the head of the UN climate panel is resigning... AGW is a lie, and things are finally starting to fall apart. I hope the world will admit that it was wrong and move towards prosperity and not pushing such a disastrous and expensive lie. Despite all evidence and all fraud, it seems the international community is arrogantly holding to their dead view and bashing/refusing to listen to anyone or any evidence that would prove them wrong.


What the hell are you going on about? Sorry you lost me...?




Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe it to be false and in recent events it has been proven to be very corrupt. The IPCC admitted many errors in their report, the head of the UN climate chief is resigning, and the Climate-Gate emails exposed some of the lies and tricks that scientists have used to push global warming. A lot of corruption and lies have been exposed, and the international community is ignoring it and refusing to listen to skeptics or anyone that believes AGW is false.
Posted 2/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The next climate summit really needs to talk about the falsehoods of the AGW theory. The climate gate emails happened, the IPCC has admitted fraud in their report, the head of the UN climate panel is resigning... AGW is a lie, and things are finally starting to fall apart. I hope the world will admit that it was wrong and move towards prosperity and not pushing such a disastrous and expensive lie. Despite all evidence and all fraud, it seems the international community is arrogantly holding to their dead view and bashing/refusing to listen to anyone or any evidence that would prove them wrong.


What the hell are you going on about? Sorry you lost me...?

Placing blame, that's what. And even still, that's not problem solving.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/20/10

DomFortress wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


amersfoort wrote:



A clean world is what we should strive for, not a world where CO2 emission is reduced to zero, because that could cause us alot of more trouble.
If it's toxins you're worrying, then you shouldn't overlook on acid rain pollution.

And while humans caused the climate change, all but one kingdoms of life on Earth are not adapting and adopting to the changing climate condition fast enough. And the only kingdom on Earth that's evolving quick enough to survive this accident are the none-carbon based life form known as technology.


Perhaps I should indeed be concerned with acid rain, unfortunatly my knowledge about it is very small therefore it did not occur to me.

And probably because of my lack of general knowledge or perhaps my lack of English knowledge (or a combination) I fail to understand your statement about technology, please feel free to explain it too me for I am eager to learn about it and too understand it.
It's not about your lack of English comprehension, for I can assure you that both Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly aren't using big words and hard to understand concept. In fact, it's about drawing comparisons based on what they've said, and forming new concept using what's similar and different about each information set.

Both Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly are techies, and their topics have two similarities: technology and energy. However, that doesn't mean they were talking about the same subject. For while Bill talked about reducing climate change, by becoming more energy efficient with new technology and economic incentives. That geared toward reducing CO2 emission. Kevin OTOH was demonstrating how technology itself became the dominate 7th kingdom of life, by managing to domesticate human beings, elevating itself to be the highest energy dense complex organism, all the while evolved to become non carbon based. By replacing its inner processors with silicon as an alternative biochemical agent.

So we can see that by assuming technology is a silicon based complex organism, its evolutionary process is the natural progression of energy efficiency while terraforming the Earth. And with an artificial intelligent capable of abstract thinking, technology will soon have no more use of humanity.


I see! That is a really frightening thought, but I think its kinda sciencefiction.
That thought might actually be worth creating a topic about.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/20/10

digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The next climate summit really needs to talk about the falsehoods of the AGW theory. The climate gate emails happened, the IPCC has admitted fraud in their report, the head of the UN climate panel is resigning... AGW is a lie, and things are finally starting to fall apart. I hope the world will admit that it was wrong and move towards prosperity and not pushing such a disastrous and expensive lie. Despite all evidence and all fraud, it seems the international community is arrogantly holding to their dead view and bashing/refusing to listen to anyone or any evidence that would prove them wrong.


What the hell are you going on about? Sorry you lost me...?




Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe it to be false and in recent events it has been proven to be very corrupt. The IPCC admitted many errors in their report, the head of the UN climate chief is resigning, and the Climate-Gate emails exposed some of the lies and tricks that scientists have used to push global warming. A lot of corruption and lies have been exposed, and the international community is ignoring it and refusing to listen to skeptics or anyone that believes AGW is false.


Agree in part with you. But I also know for a fact how the world works,, and so I do know for a fact that CO2 amounts does affect this world. Lack of CO2 is what created Snowball earth. Look it up.. SO with CO2 rising as it is, one can see the climatic changes as well. THAT IS FACT. They might have been over exaggerating the truth, but their not out right lying to us.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The next climate summit really needs to talk about the falsehoods of the AGW theory. The climate gate emails happened, the IPCC has admitted fraud in their report, the head of the UN climate panel is resigning... AGW is a lie, and things are finally starting to fall apart. I hope the world will admit that it was wrong and move towards prosperity and not pushing such a disastrous and expensive lie. Despite all evidence and all fraud, it seems the international community is arrogantly holding to their dead view and bashing/refusing to listen to anyone or any evidence that would prove them wrong.


What the hell are you going on about? Sorry you lost me...?




Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe it to be false and in recent events it has been proven to be very corrupt. The IPCC admitted many errors in their report, the head of the UN climate chief is resigning, and the Climate-Gate emails exposed some of the lies and tricks that scientists have used to push global warming. A lot of corruption and lies have been exposed, and the international community is ignoring it and refusing to listen to skeptics or anyone that believes AGW is false.


Agree in part with you. But I also know for a fact how the world works,, and so I do know for a fact that CO2 amounts does affect this world. Lack of CO2 is what created Snowball earth. Look it up.. SO with CO2 rising as it is, one can see the climatic changes as well. THAT IS FACT. They might have been over exaggerating the truth, but their not out right lying to us.


They have been lying though, Professor Phill Jones (one of the scientists who was caught in the climate-gate scandal and is a principal scientist in the AGW theory) has admitted some of the flaws and falsehoods, he also says that there has been no statistically significant warming sense 1995.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Rising CO2 is not causing warming, evidence strongly correlates warming with solar cycles. We do know that the CO2 gas is a greenhouse gas, but we also know that it is roughly 460ppm in the atmosphere, this is an extremely small percentage. Real climate data doesn't suggest a rise in temperature correlating with a rise on CO2, and if there has been no warming in 15 years then this only supports the fact that AGW is a lie. I think it's all political, politicians and certain companies have billions of dollars to make if AGW is pushed. Governments will get more power and the UN will become larger with more authority. I think this has always been the basis for pushing AGW, not to save the planet.
Posted 2/20/10 , edited 2/20/10

amersfoort wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


amersfoort wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


amersfoort wrote:



A clean world is what we should strive for, not a world where CO2 emission is reduced to zero, because that could cause us alot of more trouble.
If it's toxins you're worrying, then you shouldn't overlook on acid rain pollution.

And while humans caused the climate change, all but one kingdoms of life on Earth are not adapting and adopting to the changing climate condition fast enough. And the only kingdom on Earth that's evolving quick enough to survive this accident are the none-carbon based life form known as technology.


Perhaps I should indeed be concerned with acid rain, unfortunatly my knowledge about it is very small therefore it did not occur to me.

And probably because of my lack of general knowledge or perhaps my lack of English knowledge (or a combination) I fail to understand your statement about technology, please feel free to explain it too me for I am eager to learn about it and too understand it.
It's not about your lack of English comprehension, for I can assure you that both Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly aren't using big words and hard to understand concept. In fact, it's about drawing comparisons based on what they've said, and forming new concept using what's similar and different about each information set.

Both Bill Gates and Kevin Kelly are techies, and their topics have two similarities: technology and energy. However, that doesn't mean they were talking about the same subject. For while Bill talked about reducing climate change, by becoming more energy efficient with new technology and economic incentives. That geared toward reducing CO2 emission. Kevin OTOH was demonstrating how technology itself became the dominate 7th kingdom of life, by managing to domesticate human beings, elevating itself to be the highest energy dense complex organism, all the while evolved to become non carbon based. By replacing its inner processors with silicon as an alternative biochemical agent.

So we can see that by assuming technology is a silicon based complex organism, its evolutionary process is the natural progression of energy efficiency while terraforming the Earth. And with an artificial intelligent capable of abstract thinking, technology will soon have no more use of humanity.


I see! That is a really frightening thought, but I think its kinda science fiction.
That thought might actually be worth creating a topic about.
In reality, it's worth several topics from how humans is managing the information age due to technology, the effect of human passion, the single most important motivator in life, down to the nature of humanity.

And your fear is not based on solid evidence, due to the fact that it's based on fictional writing and not cold hard facts. Whereas I OTOH am looking at all aspects that make us more efficient and flexible with our thinking, all the while being humane. For they shall be the principles for me to charter a human factor into a redesigned artificial intelligent. One that's not based on science fiction.


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

The next climate summit really needs to talk about the falsehoods of the AGW theory. The climate gate emails happened, the IPCC has admitted fraud in their report, the head of the UN climate panel is resigning... AGW is a lie, and things are finally starting to fall apart. I hope the world will admit that it was wrong and move towards prosperity and not pushing such a disastrous and expensive lie. Despite all evidence and all fraud, it seems the international community is arrogantly holding to their dead view and bashing/refusing to listen to anyone or any evidence that would prove them wrong.


What the hell are you going on about? Sorry you lost me...?




Anthropogenic Global Warming. I believe it to be false and in recent events it has been proven to be very corrupt. The IPCC admitted many errors in their report, the head of the UN climate chief is resigning, and the Climate-Gate emails exposed some of the lies and tricks that scientists have used to push global warming. A lot of corruption and lies have been exposed, and the international community is ignoring it and refusing to listen to skeptics or anyone that believes AGW is false.


Agree in part with you. But I also know for a fact how the world works,, and so I do know for a fact that CO2 amounts does affect this world. Lack of CO2 is what created Snowball earth. Look it up.. SO with CO2 rising as it is, one can see the climatic changes as well. THAT IS FACT. They might have been over exaggerating the truth, but their not out right lying to us.


They have been lying though, Professor Phill Jones (one of the scientists who was caught in the climate-gate scandal and is a principal scientist in the AGW theory) has admitted some of the flaws and falsehoods, he also says that there has been no statistically significant warming sense 1995.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Rising CO2 is not causing warming, evidence strongly correlates warming with solar cycles. We do know that the CO2 gas is a greenhouse gas, but we also know that it is roughly 460ppm in the atmosphere, this is an extremely small percentage. Real climate data doesn't suggest a rise in temperature correlating with a rise on CO2, and if there has been no warming in 15 years then this only supports the fact that AGW is a lie. I think it's all political, politicians and certain companies have billions of dollars to make if AGW is pushed. Governments will get more power and the UN will become larger with more authority. I think this has always been the basis for pushing AGW, not to save the planet.
So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/10

So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?


The problem is that we can't use, drill, or sell oil, natural gas, and coal. Fuel prices would be lower, energy is in abundance and we refuse to tap into it for fear of climate damage through CO2. America could be energy independent and not have to pay other counties (most of which who fund terrorism or are a threat to the US) for their oil. The economy would grow and less wealth would be sent oversees for oil. Plus the US and other governments are wasting billions of dollars on climate change related stuff. This money shouldn't be spent or should at least be spent in a constructive manner. My problem is that the world is pushing a VERY expensive lie, it's purpose is to grow governments and shrink freedoms, it is preventing nations from prospering and keeping the world dependent on oil rich nations that fund terrorism, plus it is putting tons of money in the pockets of corrupt politicians and corporations that are able to profit from the lie. We are all being exploited on a global scale because of a lie, this is my problem with it.
Posted 2/20/10

digs wrote:


So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?


The problem is that we can't use, drill, or sell oil, natural gas, and coal. Fuel prices would be lower, energy is in abundance and we refuse to tap into it for fear of climate damage through CO2. America could be energy independent and not have to pay other counties (most of which who fund terrorism or are a threat to the US) for their oil. The economy would grow and less wealth would be sent oversees for oil. Plus the US and other governments are wasting billions of dollars on climate change related stuff. This money shouldn't be spent or should at least be spent in a constructive manner. My problem is that the world is pushing a VERY expensive lie, it's purpose is to grow governments and shrink freedoms, it is preventing nations from prospering and keeping the world dependent on oil rich nations that fund terrorism, plus it is putting tons of money in the pockets of corrupt politicians and corporations that are able to profit from the lie. We are all being exploited on a global scale because of a lie, this is my problem with it.
If you like oil so much why don't you go and drink it? If you like natural gas so much why don't you go and breath it? And if you like coal so much why don't you go and eat it?

Instead, the oil companies are doing the best they could to persuade the public that those are energy resources that are currently available. However they are also doing their best at covering up just how inefficient and damaging the use of those energy can be. Simply by them only attacking Global Warming research, being the fact that it's the newest scientific proof on Climate Change caused by CO2 emission. When they completely forgot the historically proven toxic effect of acid rain on plants and trees.

And with the lies that you've span, you also completely forgot the fact that it was those same oil companies who first funded on "oil rich nations", who later "fund terrorism". Simply by them outsourcing energy production jobs out of US via free-market capitalism.

Here's a word of warning for you dig, I can smell a pig from miles away. Therefore while I know you're majoring in biology, I also know now that you're a bad liar. And the fact that you're a biologist in training who's supporting the oil companies is self-evidence enough.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/10 , edited 2/20/10

DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?


The problem is that we can't use, drill, or sell oil, natural gas, and coal. Fuel prices would be lower, energy is in abundance and we refuse to tap into it for fear of climate damage through CO2. America could be energy independent and not have to pay other counties (most of which who fund terrorism or are a threat to the US) for their oil. The economy would grow and less wealth would be sent oversees for oil. Plus the US and other governments are wasting billions of dollars on climate change related stuff. This money shouldn't be spent or should at least be spent in a constructive manner. My problem is that the world is pushing a VERY expensive lie, it's purpose is to grow governments and shrink freedoms, it is preventing nations from prospering and keeping the world dependent on oil rich nations that fund terrorism, plus it is putting tons of money in the pockets of corrupt politicians and corporations that are able to profit from the lie. We are all being exploited on a global scale because of a lie, this is my problem with it.
If you like oil so much why don't you go and drink it? If you like natural gas so much why don't you go and breath it? And if you like coal so much why don't you go and eat it?

Instead, the oil companies are doing the best they could to persuade the public that those are energy resources that are currently available. However they are also doing their best at covering up just how inefficient and damaging the use of those energy can be. Simply by them only attacking Global Warming research, being the fact that it's the newest scientific proof on Climate Change caused by CO2 emission. When they completely forgot the historically proven toxic effect of acid rain on plants and trees.

And with the lies that you've span, you also completely forgot the fact that it was those same oil companies who first funded on "oil rich nations", who later "fund terrorism". Simply by them outsourcing energy production jobs out of US via free-market capitalism.

Here's a word of warning for you dig, I can smell a pig from miles away. Therefore while I know you're majoring in biology, I also know now that you're a bad liar. And the fact that you're a biologist in training who's supporting the oil companies is self-evidence enough.


I support energy independence and wealth staying in America and not being sent over to the KSA and other nations. Drilling for oil, coal, and natural gas in America isn't going to increase CO2 output, what it will do is change where we get our fuel from. The demand for oil isn't going to rise in the US by drilling here, what it does mean is that the oil that we demand will come from the US and not other places. Fuel will be cheaper, the economy would receive a boost, and we could sell surplus fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) to make profits and maybe even use that to reduce our national debt.

I think you are making an assumption that I am some big oil propagandist. I am for American oil companies drilling in America, but I am against corporate injustice. Would you rather have American oil companies be larger or Saudi ones? The newest scientific proof on climate change regarding CO2 is that it is false. I have cited a few examples in previous posts about this, and the global warming camp is being exposed for the corrupt fraud that it is. The IPCC has admitted to fraud, the climate-gate emails have exposed more fraud, and the reactions of politicians (or lack thereof) only supports the fact that it is all a fraudulent lie. My disbelief in AGW is based on scientific evidence. I don't support "big oil," nor do I think it's inherently evil. What I don't support or national governments restricting freedom and limiting prosperity. I am against international governments (the UN) gaining more power and using that power to abuse the world. Governments are corrupt, they push the AGW lie to scare people into a "if you don't support us the world will end" scenario. They instill fear through lies to gain power and abuse that power. What about companies like GE and others who personally profit from climate change? What about all the politicians that pocket money from it or the scientists that get "grants" to falsify science that supports it? The corruption isn't in the big oil, it's in the politicians and the scientific community. I don't really understand what you think I am lying about, no where have I talked about being some puppet for big oil, that's an assumption you made of me based on my beliefs regarding AGW. I am not for big oil, I am against big government.
Posted 2/20/10

digs wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?


The problem is that we can't use, drill, or sell oil, natural gas, and coal. Fuel prices would be lower, energy is in abundance and we refuse to tap into it for fear of climate damage through CO2. America could be energy independent and not have to pay other counties (most of which who fund terrorism or are a threat to the US) for their oil. The economy would grow and less wealth would be sent oversees for oil. Plus the US and other governments are wasting billions of dollars on climate change related stuff. This money shouldn't be spent or should at least be spent in a constructive manner. My problem is that the world is pushing a VERY expensive lie, it's purpose is to grow governments and shrink freedoms, it is preventing nations from prospering and keeping the world dependent on oil rich nations that fund terrorism, plus it is putting tons of money in the pockets of corrupt politicians and corporations that are able to profit from the lie. We are all being exploited on a global scale because of a lie, this is my problem with it.
If you like oil so much why don't you go and drink it? If you like natural gas so much why don't you go and breath it? And if you like coal so much why don't you go and eat it?

Instead, the oil companies are doing the best they could to persuade the public that those are energy resources that are currently available. However they are also doing their best at covering up just how inefficient and damaging the use of those energy can be. Simply by them only attacking Global Warming research, being the fact that it's the newest scientific proof on Climate Change caused by CO2 emission. When they completely forgot the historically proven toxic effect of acid rain on plants and trees.

And with the lies that you've span, you also completely forgot the fact that it was those same oil companies who first funded on "oil rich nations", who later "fund terrorism". Simply by them outsourcing energy production jobs out of US via free-market capitalism.

Here's a word of warning for you dig, I can smell a pig from miles away. Therefore while I know you're majoring in biology, I also know now that you're a bad liar. And the fact that you're a biologist in training who's supporting the oil companies is self-evidence enough.


I support energy independence and wealth staying in America and not being sent over to the KSA and other nations. Drilling for oil, coal, and natural gas in America isn't going to increase CO2 output, what it will do is change where we get our fuel from. The demand for oil isn't going to rise in the US by drilling here, what it does mean is that the oil that we demand will come from the US and not other places. Fuel will be cheaper, the economy would receive a boost, and we could sell surplus fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) to make profits and maybe even use that to reduce our national debt.

I think you are making an assumption that I am some big oil propagandist. I am for American oil companies drilling in America, but I am against corporate injustice. Would you rather have American oil companies be larger or Saudi ones? The newest scientific proof on climate change regarding CO2 is that it is false. I have cited a few examples in previous posts about this, and the global warming camp is being exposed for the corrupt fraud that it is. The IPCC has admitted to fraud, the climate-gate emails have exposed more fraud, and the reactions of politicians (or lack thereof) only supports the fact that it is all a fraudulent lie. My disbelief in AGW is based on scientific evidence. I don't support "big oil," nor do I think it's inherently evil. What I don't support or national governments restricting freedom and limiting prosperity. I am against international governments (the UN) gaining more power and using that power to abuse the world. Governments are corrupt, they push the AGW lie to scare people into a "if you don't support us the world will end" scenario. They instill fear through lies to gain power and abuse that power. What about companies like GE and others who personally profit from climate change? What about all the politicians that pocket money from it or the scientists that get "grants" to falsify science that supports it? The corruption isn't in the big oil, it's in the politicians and the scientific community. I don't really understand what you think I am lying about, no where have I talked about being some puppet for big oil, that's an assumption you made of me based on my beliefs regarding AGW. I am not for big oil, I am against big government.
Like heck you are. When you didn't even bother to respond to my acid rain/deposition claim, just like how oil companies didn't either. Because the impact on climate due to acid deposition caused by CO2 emission is indeed real, but that wasn't on the table at Copenhagen, was it?

Also, the US Department of Energy also has two domestic oil recovery programs for the oil companies here and here. So that pretty much debunk your government conspiracy theory right there.

And finally, you said nothing against Bill Gates' own "zero" carbon emission plan. When he's supporting both the alternative energy programs and the oil companies with his advanced supercomputers. Now here's a man with his corporation playing both sides with conflict of interest, and you didn't even call the "injustice card" on the man who worth $40bilions?

Therefore you are just like the big oil companies that you're supporting; crude, bias, and black to the core.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/10

DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


So what? If the end result is still more energy efficiency through better technology, then what's your problem?


The problem is that we can't use, drill, or sell oil, natural gas, and coal. Fuel prices would be lower, energy is in abundance and we refuse to tap into it for fear of climate damage through CO2. America could be energy independent and not have to pay other counties (most of which who fund terrorism or are a threat to the US) for their oil. The economy would grow and less wealth would be sent oversees for oil. Plus the US and other governments are wasting billions of dollars on climate change related stuff. This money shouldn't be spent or should at least be spent in a constructive manner. My problem is that the world is pushing a VERY expensive lie, it's purpose is to grow governments and shrink freedoms, it is preventing nations from prospering and keeping the world dependent on oil rich nations that fund terrorism, plus it is putting tons of money in the pockets of corrupt politicians and corporations that are able to profit from the lie. We are all being exploited on a global scale because of a lie, this is my problem with it.
If you like oil so much why don't you go and drink it? If you like natural gas so much why don't you go and breath it? And if you like coal so much why don't you go and eat it?

Instead, the oil companies are doing the best they could to persuade the public that those are energy resources that are currently available. However they are also doing their best at covering up just how inefficient and damaging the use of those energy can be. Simply by them only attacking Global Warming research, being the fact that it's the newest scientific proof on Climate Change caused by CO2 emission. When they completely forgot the historically proven toxic effect of acid rain on plants and trees.

And with the lies that you've span, you also completely forgot the fact that it was those same oil companies who first funded on "oil rich nations", who later "fund terrorism". Simply by them outsourcing energy production jobs out of US via free-market capitalism.

Here's a word of warning for you dig, I can smell a pig from miles away. Therefore while I know you're majoring in biology, I also know now that you're a bad liar. And the fact that you're a biologist in training who's supporting the oil companies is self-evidence enough.


I support energy independence and wealth staying in America and not being sent over to the KSA and other nations. Drilling for oil, coal, and natural gas in America isn't going to increase CO2 output, what it will do is change where we get our fuel from. The demand for oil isn't going to rise in the US by drilling here, what it does mean is that the oil that we demand will come from the US and not other places. Fuel will be cheaper, the economy would receive a boost, and we could sell surplus fuel (oil, coal, natural gas) to make profits and maybe even use that to reduce our national debt.

I think you are making an assumption that I am some big oil propagandist. I am for American oil companies drilling in America, but I am against corporate injustice. Would you rather have American oil companies be larger or Saudi ones? The newest scientific proof on climate change regarding CO2 is that it is false. I have cited a few examples in previous posts about this, and the global warming camp is being exposed for the corrupt fraud that it is. The IPCC has admitted to fraud, the climate-gate emails have exposed more fraud, and the reactions of politicians (or lack thereof) only supports the fact that it is all a fraudulent lie. My disbelief in AGW is based on scientific evidence. I don't support "big oil," nor do I think it's inherently evil. What I don't support or national governments restricting freedom and limiting prosperity. I am against international governments (the UN) gaining more power and using that power to abuse the world. Governments are corrupt, they push the AGW lie to scare people into a "if you don't support us the world will end" scenario. They instill fear through lies to gain power and abuse that power. What about companies like GE and others who personally profit from climate change? What about all the politicians that pocket money from it or the scientists that get "grants" to falsify science that supports it? The corruption isn't in the big oil, it's in the politicians and the scientific community. I don't really understand what you think I am lying about, no where have I talked about being some puppet for big oil, that's an assumption you made of me based on my beliefs regarding AGW. I am not for big oil, I am against big government.
Like heck you are. When you didn't even bother to respond to my acid rain/deposition claim, just like how oil companies didn't either. Because the impact on climate due to acid deposition caused by CO2 emission is indeed real, but that wasn't on the table at Copenhagen, was it?

Also, the US Department of Energy also has two domestic oil recovery programs for the oil companies here and here. So that pretty much debunk your government conspiracy theory right there.

And finally, you said nothing against Bill Gates' own "zero" carbon emission plan. When he's supporting both the alternative energy programs and the oil companies with his advanced supercomputers. Now here's a man with his corporation playing both sides with conflict of interest, and you didn't even call the "injustice card" on the man who worth $40bilions?

Therefore you are just like the big oil companies that you're supporting; crude, bias, and black to the core.


I didn't feel the need to respond to acid rain. As I said before, drilling in America won't increase the need for oil, it will just change where the oil is coming from and where the wealth goes. I mean all respect when I say this, but you haven't addressed anything regarding AGW or the corruption within the movement or the scientific community that I have posted about.

The US Department of Energy is a hypocrite, they need to allow companies to drill and produce wealth.

Do I have to talk about Bill Gates? Am I all of a sudden a lier for big oil because I didn't post about something I had no knowledge of? I am against AGW because it is harmful to society, increases government, is based on a lie, and is used to manipulate the masses and scare people into supporting governments based on fear. I support energy independence and alternative fuels. I support renewable energy and a prospering economy. I don't support harming oil companies and crippling the economy and energy independence because of a lie. My stance is not "pro big oil," it is pro energy independence and anti-big lying government.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/21/10
Then lets try and take a different look on the enormous oil and gas consumption!
Oil and gas will not be there forever, one day oil will just not be worth drilling at.
That is also where Copenhagen failed, all of the world is relying so much on oil that they only invest small amounts of money in alternative energy.
We really really need to start thinking about our future, Global warming wont kill us, but what will happen when there is no more oil?
Ofcourse we will also survive that, but when it happens, we will be totally screwed for a while, we need to start thinking on the long run, not what might happen in 10 years, but rather at 100 (for starters).

Also the main problem why copenhagen failed is because leaders only want what is best for their country, that is understandable, but in the end we are all together on this world, we need a whats best for humankind, not for the people of the Netherlands, or Russia.
We need a politic that is aimed at the WORLD not at a small country or even a continent.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.