Climate scientists to speak in Erie

May 20, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Erie Times News

Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann has been criticized on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, maligned on cable news stations and placed on an enemies list by a U.S. senator.

Comments
61 - 80 of 117 Comments Last updated May 30, 2012
James Blond

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how you could have misread my post. I do not believe in man made global warming. It is impossible fossil fuels being burned on every continent at a rate of billions of gallons a minute could have even the slightest effect on the climate.
Just because the earth was very hot 20 million years ago when all this carbon was part of the bio sphere, it doesn't mean that putting all that carbon back into the bio sphere could will result in climates similar to when that much CO2 was in the air.
How could science prove such a ridulous hypothesis.
As far a Consevatism being the next religion, its got all the right key elements.
It's exclusionary, it is intolerannt of other ideas and the people who support them.
Climb aboard, its the only way to save America! Liberalism will ruin us all...Come to the light of Conservatism....
Your definition of conservatism is actually the definition of liberalism. Intolerant, exclusionary, and the truth is based on lies. You have been duped by the liberal lies which makes you a common, uneducated american incapable of critical thinking.
doh

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12508...

Hey SoS if the brilliant prof jones is not so sure how can you be?
Manndebunker

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Here's a number of quotes from the 2007 IPCC report which obscurely but substantially undermine the "Settled Science" they shout for public consumption: Is the IPCC a "denier?" http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-change-of-t...
Sick of Stupid

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

doh wrote:
Hey SoS if the brilliant prof jones is not so sure how can you be?
I'm not sure. Like I stated before it is impossible that burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of carbon in the form of CO2, into our atmosphere from every civilized portion of our planet could have an effect on how our atmosphere holds energy, like heat. Just because the carbon in oil and other fossil fuels like coal has been trapped underground for millions of years and not part of the biosphere, and now it is being released back when we refine and burn these products, That does not mean that the earth will hold more heat and get warmer like it was millions of years ago. There is no way burning millions of gallons of oil a minute all day everyday everywhere could have a lasting effect on our global climate.
If you fart in the living room can you smell it in the kitchen? Same principal applies here.

No good lying climatologists. Their just out for political gain and financial reward. They don't care about the real science. They just want a chance to meet George Clooney.
Rush says the earth is too big to fail just because of some oil burning. And he must be right because he and the pundits with no training in climatology or and other science weighing in on this do not have any kind of agenda. They want to make sure you always have the right to waste our resources In any manner you see fit. It's the scientists who have lied for political gain, not our beloved radio and TV personalities.
So who ya gonna believe? A high school drop out with a radio show? Or some moron who devoted his life to understanding how our world actually works?
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure. Like I stated before it is impossible that burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of carbon in the form of CO2, into our atmosphere from every civilized portion of our planet could have an effect on how our atmosphere holds energy, like heat. Just because the carbon in oil and other fossil fuels like coal has been trapped underground for millions of years and not part of the biosphere, and now it is being released back when we refine and burn these products, That does not mean that the earth will hold more heat and get warmer like it was millions of years ago. There is no way burning millions of gallons of oil a minute all day everyday everywhere could have a lasting effect on our global climate.
If you fart in the living room can you smell it in the kitchen? Same principal applies here.
No good lying climatologists. Their just out for political gain and financial reward. They don't care about the real science. They just want a chance to meet George Clooney.
Rush says the earth is too big to fail just because of some oil burning. And he must be right because he and the pundits with no training in climatology or and other science weighing in on this do not have any kind of agenda. They want to make sure you always have the right to waste our resources In any manner you see fit. It's the scientists who have lied for political gain, not our beloved radio and TV personalities.
So who ya gonna believe? A high school drop out with a radio show? Or some moron who devoted his life to understanding how our world actually works?
Seems like a no brainer to me.
The oil companies have entire groups that they pay to debunk global warming. They pay a lot of money to sell having the oil wars. They own Fox News, they own everyone on Fox. This is why Fox is the ONLY "news" channel denying global warming, and why they still support the Iraq war, and this is why Fox keeps selling a war in Iran. Cheney's plan from day one was to invade Iraq and then Iran and build military bases in the Persian Gulf because that is where most of the remaining world's oil is. And, you could see the drum beat for the oil companies back from the time Glenn Beck was on the air. He was selling it that global warming was not real, and you see Hannity saying he still supports invading Iraq, he told that Iman last night that the U.S. is so great because it "liberated" Iraq. It liberated the oil fields from being controlled by the Iraqi people to being controlled by BP and by Exxon. War is our biggest business, and you know Limbaugh and those people who work on Fox have war subcontracting companies and lots of stocks in the war corporations and in the oil companies, and they are paid to sell the oil companies' messages and to sell their oil wars. This is why they have John Bolton on from morning til night selling a war with Iran. They can't find one military person who would do that. No fiscal conservative would do that. But Bolton will do it. All of those people sold their souls. They are paid to lie and they know that. All of those people on The Five, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Megan Kelly, Neil Cavuto, they all sell "stay on oil, global warming is not real, have oil wars, war with Iran." We have been out of oil since 1970, that's why they have to invade these countries to get oil. This is an old, sick and outdated energy policy. But, they have the shows, they have radio and TV shows where they sell and sell it, and dumb people believe it. They don't know anything else. Plus, they want to keep everything as it was, they want to think there's tons of oil, no global warming, no need to change anything ever. Well, the U.S. is about a year away from total collapse, so everything is changing. When it collapses, no one will be able to afford to buy gas. Everything is changing anyway, no matter people deny it. They can do what they want, it won't stop things from changing and it won't stop global warming.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What this country should do is like what Palin did in Alaska. They should nationalize the oil, use our oil to pay off our debt, take it for the people of the country, take it away from the oil companies. That would solve our debt problem and solve us having wars for oil companies. We should put them out of busienss and nationalize our oil like so many other countries do. They don't want that. The few rich want all the profits from the oil. And this is WHY they use our military to go into countries that have nationalized oil and take it for American and British oil companies. We should tell the oil companies to go to hell and take the money.
doh

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure. Like I stated before it is impossible that burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of carbon in the form of CO2, into our atmosphere from every civilized portion of our planet could have an effect on how our atmosphere holds energy, like heat. Just because the carbon in oil and other fossil fuels like coal has been trapped underground for millions of years and not part of the biosphere, and now it is being released back when we refine and burn these products, That does not mean that the earth will hold more heat and get warmer like it was millions of years ago. There is no way burning millions of gallons of oil a minute all day everyday everywhere could have a lasting effect on our global climate.
If you fart in the living room can you smell it in the kitchen? Same principal applies here.
No good lying climatologists. Their just out for political gain and financial reward. They don't care about the real science. They just want a chance to meet George Clooney.
Rush says the earth is too big to fail just because of some oil burning. And he must be right because he and the pundits with no training in climatology or and other science weighing in on this do not have any kind of agenda. They want to make sure you always have the right to waste our resources In any manner you see fit. It's the scientists who have lied for political gain, not our beloved radio and TV personalities.
So who ya gonna believe? A high school drop out with a radio show? Or some moron who devoted his life to understanding how our world actually works?
Seems like a no brainer to me.
You're not sure? But al gore already told us the science is settled and we really should listen to him, he invented the internet you know.
And what are you doing about global warmimg? Here's a few suggestions to make the world a better place:
1) Never use a call phone again. The cities they're made in over in china are some of the most polluted places on earth.
2) Instead of breathing normally hold your breath for extend periods of time. Don't worry about oxygen deprivation it's already too late for you.
3) Recycle your urine for use in your adobe hut.
4) The next time you see a cow getting ready to fart put your mouth over its ass and hope it's not a lumpy fart.
I hope these help.
Stu Pedaso

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pamela wrote:
What this country should do is like what Palin did in Alaska. They should nationalize the oil, use our oil to pay off our debt, take it for the people of the country, take it away from the oil companies. That would solve our debt problem and solve us having wars for oil companies. We should put them out of busienss and nationalize our oil like so many other countries do. They don't want that. The few rich want all the profits from the oil. And this is WHY they use our military to go into countries that have nationalized oil and take it for American and British oil companies. We should tell the oil companies to go to hell and take the money.
You must be Nancy Pelosi. You are every bit as stupid.
asdf

Titusville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rethuglitard wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to drive vehicle that gets 7 miles to the gallon maybe you should be taxed for it. We can call it a dumb ass tax.
As far as the light bulbs go.... Most 130 year old designs end being abandoned at some point.
Which brings me back to....climate change and those lying scientists.
So do scientists get a cut of the light bulb sales? Do the gas guzzler taxes go right to some scientific society?
Why do these scientists lie to us? Is it for the fame? I see climate scientists always hamming it up with celebrities.
Maybe they just lie to lie?????
Or....
Maybe they are completely right and at some point our own planet will just cook us right out of existance. But hopefully no oil companies will have gone out of business or have been unjustly taxed before we all roast. That's what really matters.... Isn't it?
your numbers are off a bit. i bought a car that gets 23 mpg on the highway but was deemed 'ineffecient' by the efficiency czar and so i had to pay around a $4,000 gas guzzler tax. why should i have to pay that when i am the one who has to allegedly suffer and pay for all the fuel i consume and the associated taxes with purchasing fuel. i agree that is a dumb ass made up tax for no good reason other than try to persuade me to not purchase that vehicle. it didn't work. i bought it.

that 130 year old technology still to this day provides a much, much better quality of light than the new and 'improved' fluorescent bulbs that are being forced down our throats. i pay for all the electric that is consumed by my incandescent bulbs so why won't i be able to buy them in the future? i like the light they emit and for certain applications i do use fluorescent bulbs but for some applications i would like to keep that 130 year old technology. and by the way, it has been improved over the years. if you think that the same technology edison used is exactly the same as today's incandescants...you're wrong.

and why do the 'scientists' stretch the truth, cherry pick data, or make it appear to fit the agenda that you somehow believe....well, i would just follow the money. that's pretty simple.
snag

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

hope this guy get's out of town, wasted enough carbon just commenting on his views that ..... are hot air!
Sick of Stupid

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here's a near fact.....
Guess what the number one e port of the USA in 2011??????
GASOLINE. That wasn't even the in the top 25 exports in 2010
Isn't that interesting? Do you know why? FRACKING. Natural gas is cHeap and easy to get from this process. So cheap the dramatic effect on the water table and people's lives is just tossed out the window. We can make gasoline cheaper than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. Refineries need lots of heat to crack crude into its usable parts. Usually that heat comes from burning crude oil, But we have a huge. Heap supply of natural gas to be exploited. So we have cut the cost, doubled the output, and have sold off our fuel to the highest bidder. Way to go free markets!
I wonder how the republicans would react to commy Obama stopping our precious oil companties from making there well deserved millions in profit hourly by lowering our price and making it up in off shore sales or just stopping export of fuel all together? Wouldn't be pretty would it.
I wonder why hannity or fat boy never mentioned this?
Why hasn't our republican caretakers demanded policy changes to stop the rape of our resources?
See the thought provoking posts of Pamela above to see why.
Manndebunker

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sick of Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure. Like I stated before it is impossible that burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of carbon in the form of CO2, into our atmosphere from every civilized portion of our planet could have an effect on how our atmosphere holds energy, like heat. Just because the carbon in oil and other fossil fuels like coal has been trapped underground for millions of years and not part of the biosphere, and now it is being released back when we refine and burn these products, That does not mean that the earth will hold more heat and get warmer like it was millions of years ago. There is no way burning millions of gallons of oil a minute all day everyday everywhere could have a lasting effect on our global climate.
If you fart in the living room can you smell it in the kitchen? Same principal applies here.
No good lying climatologists. Their just out for political gain and financial reward. They don't care about the real science. They just want a chance to meet George Clooney.
Rush says the earth is too big to fail just because of some oil burning. And he must be right because he and the pundits with no training in climatology or and other science weighing in on this do not have any kind of agenda. They want to make sure you always have the right to waste our resources In any manner you see fit. It's the scientists who have lied for political gain, not our beloved radio and TV personalities.
So who ya gonna believe? A high school drop out with a radio show? Or some moron who devoted his life to understanding how our world actually works?
Seems like a no brainer to me.
The alarmists have been funded vastly more than the skeptics. This provides considerable incentive, along with the praise and adulation of compliant media, to continue the scaremongering. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stor...
Sick of Stupid

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
May 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

asdf wrote:
<quoted text>
your numbers are off a bit. i bought a car that gets 23 mpg on the highway but was deemed 'ineffecient' by the efficiency czar and so i had to pay around a $4,000 gas guzzler tax. why should i have to pay that when i am the one who has to allegedly suffer and pay for all the fuel i consume and the associated taxes with purchasing fuel. i agree that is a dumb ass made up tax for no good reason other than try to persuade me to not purchase that vehicle. it didn't work. i bought it.
that 130 year old technology still to this day provides a much, much better quality of light than the new and 'improved' fluorescent bulbs that are being forced down our throats. i pay for all the electric that is consumed by my incandescent bulbs so why won't i be able to buy them in the future? i like the light they emit and for certain applications i do use fluorescent bulbs but for some applications i would like to keep that 130 year old technology. and by the way, it has been improved over the years. if you think that the same technology edison used is exactly the same as today's incandescants...you're wrong.
and why do the 'scientists' stretch the truth, cherry pick data, or make it appear to fit the agenda that you somehow believe....well, i would just follow the money. that's pretty simple.
I'm not wrong about incandescent bulbs. Electricity making a filiment in a vacuum glow is the same bulb Edison is credited with inventing. Filiment materials have changed, but the tech is still the same. Lots of energy wasted makIng heat and some of it making light. Same tech.

I don't believe you paid a federal "gas guzzler tax" on your vehicle, never heard of it so it so it can't be true. Sorry
I don't believe in any agenda right or left.

All I said was it is impossible that 10 billion people addicted to petroleum Burning millions of gallons of gas an hour all day every day could possibly have an effect on the global climate. Not to mention tons of coal burned daily too.
Do you agree with that or disagree?
Simple enough question.
How about an answer rude boy.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Stu Pedaso wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be Nancy Pelosi. You are every bit as stupid.
How are you going to pay the $16 trillion in debt back? How can you even pay the interest on the debt each year? It's already $240 billion a year at one percent interest. Unless you raise taxes or cut a lot of spending, you can't pay that debt back and we will default soon enough. At least I have an idea of how to pay the debt back. You people keep saying to cut spending, but you never even look into where the money is being spent.

80 percent of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and to military spending. The tea party wants all of those socialism programs, they don't want any cuts to SS, Medicare nor to military spending, so there is nothing to cut. So what is your idea to pay the interest on the debt and to pay off the debt? You want lower taxes, you don't want any cuts to SS and Medicare, you want no cuts to military spending, so there's nothing you can cut.

It came out on Lou Dobbs show last night that the deficit is actually 5 trillion a year. I said this for years now. I said that Social Security and Medicare have 120 TRILLION dollars of unfunded liabilities, I said you would have to pay out 4 trillion per year in welfare, in borrowed money, to pay out 120 TRILLION dollars in SS and Medicare to the baby boomers over the next 20-30 years. Now it comes out, yes, our deficit spending is actually 5 trillion. So you would have to end SS and Medicare today to stop the deficit spending, and cut way back on our military spending, or you would have to raise taxes a lot to pay for this stuff. You'd have to create a new national sales tax to pay for SS and Medicare. I said this for years. So I come up with the idea to use our oil profits to pay off the debt and you call me a commie. The tea party is low IQ idiots. You call Republicans, Ron Paul supports Dems. You people can't ever think, you just repeat Fox. We don't need idiots like this in the U.S. You people are wasting everyone's time.

Your socialism is going to cost us 4 TRILLION a year - SS and Medicare. So shut the hell up, all of you, about how you hate socialism. You people are not thinking about anything real. You're just repeating stupid hate stuff from TV.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

We have 4 trillion dollars of debt from wars, oil wars, and ONLY the oil companies profit from it, not us. Why do people want to keep oil and gas in the hands of those companies when they own our politicians and will have us in a war in Iran for the oil in Iran, we will get stuck with another 3-4 trillion dollars of debt from it, and not profit from it at all, while Exxon and BP will profit greatly from taking nationalized oil away from people in other countries. Why don't we nationalize our oil, take the oil and gas companies out of our government, and use the money to pay off the war debt we ran up for the oil companies? How many people want to pay a huge value added tax to pay off the debt? That's what people like Glenn Beck want to do. They want to end Social Security and Medicare, wipe out that debt, and then create a national sales tax to pay off the debt, so you get to pay for the oil wars. Why not take the oil for the people and pay off the debt?
James Blond

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pamela wrote:
We have 4 trillion dollars of debt from wars, oil wars, and ONLY the oil companies profit from it, not us. Why do people want to keep oil and gas in the hands of those companies when they own our politicians and will have us in a war in Iran for the oil in Iran, we will get stuck with another 3-4 trillion dollars of debt from it, and not profit from it at all, while Exxon and BP will profit greatly from taking nationalized oil away from people in other countries. Why don't we nationalize our oil, take the oil and gas companies out of our government, and use the money to pay off the war debt we ran up for the oil companies? How many people want to pay a huge value added tax to pay off the debt? That's what people like Glenn Beck want to do. They want to end Social Security and Medicare, wipe out that debt, and then create a national sales tax to pay off the debt, so you get to pay for the oil wars. Why not take the oil for the people and pay off the debt?
You have to be the MOST clueless poster on this site. The oil companies make almost NOTHING on the sale of a gallon of gas. The state and especially federal govts rake in billions in taxes. The oil companies aren't the bad guys. The FEDERAL govt is the REAL Bad Guy. As far as a value added tax Glen Beck does NOT promote such socialism. The program they're talking about is a consumption tax or a flat tax. As far as fighting wars for oil you are a moron. We are using foreign oil because of liberals and environmentalists that are using the judicial activists to block us from getting our own oil which is PROVEN to be the worlds largest reserve. Don't comment on things you obviously know nothing about.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

James Blond wrote:
<quoted text>You have to be the MOST clueless poster on this site. The oil companies make almost NOTHING on the sale of a gallon of gas. The state and especially federal govts rake in billions in taxes. The oil companies aren't the bad guys. The FEDERAL govt is the REAL Bad Guy. As far as a value added tax Glen Beck does NOT promote such socialism. The program they're talking about is a consumption tax or a flat tax. As far as fighting wars for oil you are a moron. We are using foreign oil because of liberals and environmentalists that are using the judicial activists to block us from getting our own oil which is PROVEN to be the worlds largest reserve. Don't comment on things you obviously know nothing about.
You're an idiot, typical low IQ Fox drone. I am a 36 year Republican voter.d I voted Republican long before Fox existed. I have been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, since Bush took the U.S. down. You have NO clue. The U.S. oil production peaked in 1970. You talk stupid crazy crap about the U.S. has oil. That's all bullsh!t. I'm not talking to stupid people anymore. I'm out of here. There's NOTHING but low IQ very stupid people in Topix repeating Fox TV. I'm done.

You invade Iraq to get at that vast amount of oil and you have no clue you don't have oil here. Fox has you endorsing a third war, invading Iran for the oil, and you go on and on that we have oil here. So why in the hell do we keep invading the countries that have MOST of the remaining world's oil in the Persian Gulf? If we have all of this oil here, why did we peak in 1970 and why keep waring where all the oil is?? Get a Fking clue.
JamesBlond

Erie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>You're an idiot, typical low IQ Fox drone. I am a 36 year Republican voter.d I voted Republican long before Fox existed. I have been a Ron Paul supporter since 2007, since Bush took the U.S. down. You have NO clue. The U.S. oil production peaked in 1970. You talk stupid crazy crap about the U.S. has oil. That's all bullsh!t. I'm not talking to stupid people anymore. I'm out of here. There's NOTHING but low IQ very stupid people in Topix repeating Fox TV. I'm done.
You invade Iraq to get at that vast amount of oil and you have no clue you don't have oil here. Fox has you endorsing a third war, invading Iran for the oil, and you go on and on that we have oil here. So why in the hell do we keep invading the countries that have MOST of the remaining world's oil in the Persian Gulf? If we have all of this oil here, why did we peak in 1970 and why keep waring where all the oil is?? Get a Fking clue.
Thankyou for showing us AGAIN that you have a total lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about. Peak oil? 1970's? Peak oil was talked about as far back as the 1920's. Edison stated we would run out of oil in his lifetime. Most oil was not assessable with old technology. Most oil is not at the surface as it was in texas and is in the middle east. New technologies make it possible to recover deeper pockets of oil and even oil locked in shale. Adolpf Hitler ran his army on oil released from shale as Germany had no traditional oil fields. Your rant on Fox news has nothing to do with the fact that you have no clue of what you're talking about. You're just emotionally throwing up misinformation you have heard somewhere. Study the subject before you speak and you won't look like a moron.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JamesBlond wrote:
<quoted text>Thankyou for showing us AGAIN that you have a total lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about. Peak oil? 1970's? Peak oil was talked about as far back as the 1920's. Edison stated we would run out of oil in his lifetime. Most oil was not assessable with old technology. Most oil is not at the surface as it was in texas and is in the middle east. New technologies make it possible to recover deeper pockets of oil and even oil locked in shale. Adolpf Hitler ran his army on oil released from shale as Germany had no traditional oil fields. Your rant on Fox news has nothing to do with the fact that you have no clue of what you're talking about. You're just emotionally throwing up misinformation you have heard somewhere. Study the subject before you speak and you won't look like a moron.
U.S. oil production peaked in 1970. Look it up. Saudi oil production peaked in 2010. Look it up. Saudi Arabia is now building solar panels and wants to sell us oil and solar energy. China has no oil and it has the market on solar, not us. We should have had the solar market, not China. We went into Iraq after Bush found out Saudi oil production peaked. 2/3ds of the remaining world's oil is in the Persian Gulf, in Iran, Iraq and in West Africa, all of the countries where we war. Cheney's energy strategy was to get into the places where most of the world's oil is - he planned on building that huge embassy and military bases in Iraq and then going into Iran and doing the same thing.

What is the result of the war in Iraq?? Trillions of dollars of debt on us, and Exxon and BP now in control of that oil. Iraq alone has ten percent of the world's remaining oil. You stupid people talk about shale oil and sand tar. There is no more regular cheap oil here, since 1970.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
May 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The stupid Fox drones are the ones who voted for Obama, not me. They are all former Dems or first time voters, not me. They all repeat the television, not me. Fox is selling a new war in Iran and they buy it, not me.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••