“Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology (fossil fuels) rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology (renewable energy)?” asked columnist Thomas Friedman. “It reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the information technology revolution, is pounding the table for ‘Typewriters, baby, typewriters!’
“Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra ‘Invent, baby, invent’? That is what a party really committed to ‘change’ would be doing.
“I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
208 Comments
Maybe the Republican party can start by inventing new ideas and invent some actual solutions rather than focusing on pig lipstick.
“Maggotpunk” –
We have no worries.
Turns out the Moose-Dresser is the nation’s top expert in energy policy.
Apparently, she can see a gas station from her porch.
“Invent, baby, invent. … why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra ‘Invent, baby, invent’?”
Ah Thomas, you naive liberal Pollyanna. OR
Ah Thomas, you disingenuous partisan hack. OR
Ah Thomas, you dummy.
I wasn’t sure.
I tend toward “disingenuous partisan hack”.
It’s pretty early in the morning, “outlander” –
…to result to name-calling as your only CONservative position.
“[D]isingenuous partisan hack,” indeed.
I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em, Monk. Friedman sort of grates on me, if you couldn’t tell.
No time for chit chat though. Got an early tee time. Have a good one.
Friedman has a valid point that the focus should not be on oil since it is finite and the dependence is too great on it. If it was a food source would it make sense to being yelling “eat baby eat!”.
“writerdog” –
I kinda like “eat, baby, eat!”
Because the connection is this:
Food is a renewable resource.
There’s probably a “Star Trek” fan-fic script to write about the Starship Enterprise landing on a planet that survives on digging food out of the ground. And Doctor* Spock has to tell them they can plant seeds and raise critters and develop a renewable system of developing food.
* Or is it “Mister” Spock? I’m not a Trekkie. I sometimes think they made only one episode. Every time I’m bored and tune in to a Star Trek episode, it’s the one with the black-and-white people.
Live long and… na-noo nan-oo?
Something like that.
Invent, baby, invent’ is just fine, do it…but we have to have the energy now to continue to invent and to survive. So, do both!!!
It’s a lot easier to say ‘invent, baby invent’ than it is to actually invent something that will replace oil, and it is a Pollyanna attitude to just say it with know idea how or what, and it takes time and money. We need to do all we can now and that most certainly includes drill, baby drill.
“Soylent Blue is dinosaur jism!!”
– A line Charlton Heston has forgotten
“Boxlock” opines –
“Invent, baby, invent’ is just fine, do it…but we have to have the energy now to continue to invent and to survive. So, do both!!!”
Perhaps you missed the portion of the original post which said, “Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power…”?
And, as has been made explicit on countless previous threads, just which area of technology makes sense to invest in? An established non-renewable energy technology (oil, nukes, etc.) or technologies that would benefit from intense R&D and logistics planning?
As you noted, “Boxlock,” “…it takes time and money.”
outlander
Posted September 20, 2008 at 6:59 am | Permalink
I tend toward “disingenuous partisan hack”
====================================================
Yep, called yourself pretty much to a “tee.” Don’t loose your balls out there on the course. Oh, I’m sorry; did you say you already have?
“Invent, baby, invent. … why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra ‘Invent, baby, invent’?”
No more foolish than “We will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade” back in the 60s. I remember that all too well – while watching our rockets blowing up on the launch pad. We did NOT have the technology to even begin to do so. BUT WE DID IT!
It is too bad that so many on the right believe that only a “naive liberal Pollyanna” or a “dummy” would still believe in America’s abilities.
Invent, baby, invent!
McCain has already set the example by inventing the Blackberry.
Newspapers are OLD technology.
TAX newsprint! Use that tax revenue to subsidize interent access.
TAX newsprint! Use that tax revenue to subsidize methane extraction, from landfills, where all of those newspapers end up.
Newspapers chop down trees.
Gasoline and diesel fuel are used, to transport those trees to the paper mill.
Paper manufacturing uses more energy, and water, and causes more pollution.
The newsprint is transported to the printing presses, using up more fossil fuels.
Ink, and the solvents used in the printing processs, use up energy, and cause pollution.
Then, the finished newspapers require the use of fossil fuels, as they are distributed.
Hauling these newspapers to the dump requires more use of energy!
TAX newsprint!
TAX the Eagle!
Newspapers are OLD, outdated technology.
Lets think about the future!
By the way, Kings in the Dark Ages ordered their alchemists to turn lead into gold.
How did that turn out?
Anti intellectualism:
“a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them”.
“We can’t win with eggheads and minorities” Paul Begala.
Sometimes, “Franklin,” –
You’re just a fool, as with:
“…Kings in the Dark Ages ordered their alchemists to turn lead into gold.
How did that turn out?”
Worked out pretty good, as it turned out.
Of course only a fool would have “ordered” alchemists to turn lead into gold. But plenty of them financed the effort.
And as it turned out, the alchemists learned a lot of stuff that later turned into the foundation of chemistry, molecular physics, the scientific method….
Another progressive liberal excuse maker by BrownLib.
Well, let’s see, there has been ‘eggheads’ like bth with their PhD’s since the 1960s and during the fuel crisis, did he have any inventions? What about all the other supposed thousands of other liberal scientists?
Where are their inventions that work, are practical and are affordable?
So Friedmann and BrownLib must think that conservative scientists are the only one that could possibly have the answers because the Lib scientists have been too buy getting $$$$ for government research to do any real inventing that works.
The Phd’s out there want hand outs, in the form of government and corporate grants to Universities and the like.
Many American “scientists” are just as greedy as anyone on Wallstreet.
Also, Lehman Brothers was VERY involved with the whole “carbon credit” issue and was very tight with Al Gore.
Just wait! These “carbon credits” will be the biggest financial scam in history, if they ever get off the ground.
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/17/lehman-bros-the-environmentalist-connection/
Why do the CONs say “Drill, baby, drill”?
Besides the freudian ramifications, it shows what they really want–more money for the already rich.
They don’t want to just maintain the status quo, they want to increase the wealth inequality.
They tell the middle class that we’ll screw your pay, your freedom of speech, your votes, your job prospects, but by golly, we’ll let you own as many guns as you want.
Average pay of a university Ph.D. researcher–60 to 130,000 dollars a year.
Average pay of a CEO of a Wall Street Financial Bank–10 million dollars.
YEAH! Those damn greedy university researchers!
University Phd’s don’t produce much of anything.
Just because they are non-productive does not mean that they are not greedy.
“Let’s see, there has been ‘eggheads’ like bth with their PhD’s since the 1960s and during the fuel crisis, did he have any inventions . . . ”
1. The internet started as an experiment with university computer science departments.
2. Einstein gave us the theoretical framework to develop nuclear power.
3. Theoretical physicist and mathmatician James Clerk Maxwell provided an understanding of electromagnetism that is essential to practically everything that uses electricity or a magnet–like an electric car for instance.
He also made the first color photograph.
Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 9:40 am | Permalink
University Phd’s don’t produce much of anything.
Just because they are non-productive does not mean that they are not greedy.
Many university PhDs were involved in the space program. In biology they lay the foundation of pharaceutical research. When I worked in the oil industry I collaborated with University types to leverage our research.
Capn – I remember the old ARPA net days. I should have killed it when I had the chance! ;)
Most CEO don’t really produce anything either.
I don’t know that certain insurance product salespeople produce much either.
The entire Universisty system is corrupt to the core.
I think it is time to seperate “teaching” roles from “research” roles.
We have far too many tenured professors who do virtually nothing at all.
The reason college is expensive is because of the waste at most colleges and universities.
Yes, some good ideas have come from research, at Universities. Why must the salaries of those researchers be paid by tuition money, when most of those scientists spend hardly any time in the classroom.
BTW Ben, Google “proton polarization” and add my last name to your search. It is not like I do not have such, in my family, I just think the current system of “research” colleges, is financially unfair to students.
““Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology (fossil fuels) rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology”
He answered his own question.
The cons are the party of business, the status quo, what is.
Republicans do not care about America or Americans. They care about money and the making and hoarding of it.
SPENDING money on research to make America better? You may as well ask a vampire to DRINK holy water.
The ideal solution would be if we could grind up or melt down Republicans and use them as an energy source. Kill two birds with one stone as it were. That or find a way to harvest the hot air they blow.
Dark:
darkanonm
Posted September 20, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Most CEO don’t really produce anything either.
—–
Were you talking about the CEO’s at:
Fannie Mae?
Freddie Mac?
Lehman Brothers?
Country Wide?
They were DEMOCRATS, and they did “do something” — they did HUGE damage to the economy and to the taxpayers!
BJ
You are obtuse.
You spout the same class-warfare, envy crap every day.
However, you seem to not get the point that Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and Countrywide, which are costing us lots of money, right now, were looted by the DEMOCRAT Party!
Also, how on Earth do you know that anything we are now researching will “make life better” on the energy front?
Simply put, you don’t know that.
It is a hunch, a hope, a dream that we might some day come up with a substitute for oil. Nothing more.
The Republican Pinheads seem to be big on creationism and short on creativity, innovation and scientific curiousity in all aspects.
Hey, whatever happened to Charles Keating? Did he die in prison? Someone do a “where are they now? thing.
Wasn’t Duke Cunningham the model for the real “Maverick,” like in Top Gun? What’s he up to now?
Isn’t it kind of rude for McCain to misappropriate Cunningham’s handle?
Y’know.
Sometimes conservatism (traditional conservatism, anyway) trips over a modicum of sense.
I remember reading somewhere, from a true conservative, the theory that if had been solely up to the New Deal, polio research in the 30s, 40s, and 50s would have concentrated on building a bigger and better iron lung.
As it turned out, private contributions (such as the March of Dimes), and academic research developed Jonas Salk and his vaccine. (But the record is vague; did Salk benefit financially from his discovery? Was that his incentive? What was his incentive, CONs? Fill me in.)
But I guess marching with dimes doesn’t cut it anymore. So researcher have to appeal to venture capitalists. That’s why there was more capitalist investment spent developing Viagra, Cialis, and those other hard-on pills in five years than for Alzheimer’s, SIDS, juvenile diabetes, leukemia, lupis, and breast cancer….COMBINED!!
http://pubs.ama-assn.org/
The Republic Party approach to health care reform?
If your kid gets cancer, hold a bake sale.
Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 10:00 am | Permalin
BTW Ben, Google “proton polarization” and add my last name to your search. It is not like I do not have such, in my family, I just think the current system of “research” colleges, is financially unfair to students.
==============================================
Which last name would that be. Franklin? 101? Roswell? Polorized? Mouthpiece? Limbaughitte? One Track?
“I think it is time to seperate “teaching” roles from “research” roles.”
That would be idiotic. It is by DOING research that grad students learn.
And Paul, just because some relative of your might have brains doesn’t prove anything about you.
Sigh…
Time for your disclaimer Franklin.
Franklin is a many times busted liar, a washed up Republican party functionary, and a poster here not for his own opinions but the agitation propaganda of the Republican party. He is to be taken as no more than a Republican commercial.
Back to the thread.
“Drill baby drill!”
There is an old and useless tendency in human beings, particularly of the more limited in thinking such as those who vote Republican.
Chant a useless slogan and call it a solution to a problem.
In my own personal life, I no longer find confessed Republicans worth associating with. It’s like trying to have a conversation with someone repeatedly hitting his or her own head with a ball peen hammer.
Kansas Dem
4 members of the “Keating 5″ were DEMOCRATS!
McCain was cleared of any wrong doing.
Try again.
“Why must the salaries of those researchers be paid by tuition money”
Often it is not – it comes from grant money. And Paul, as you know, the University takes a chunk off the top of grants for ‘oevrhead’ so they make a profit on sponsored research.
Monkey
The LIBERAL decision to ban DDT has caused more medical deaths than anything any conservative has ever done or failed to do.
Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 10:07 am | Permalink
BJ
You are obtuse.
You spout the same class-warfare, envy crap every day.
However, you seem to not get the point that Fannie, Freddie, Lehman and Countrywide, which are costing us lots of money, right now, were looted by the DEMOCRAT Party!
Also, how on Earth do you know that anything we are now researching will “make life better” on the energy front?
Simply put, you don’t know that.
It is a hunch, a hope, a dream that we might some day come up with a . . . Nothing more.
================================================
. . . horseless carridge . . . flying machine . . . a cure for polio . . . mindless Republican . . . satellites . . .
Son of a gun, Franklin. We got em all. Amazing what the human mind is capable of, isn’t it?
Ben
My point was that you do not have to talk down to everyone on this Blog.
You seem to think that your sheepskins certified everyone else as “stupid” rather than showing the humility that you have a specialized knowledge in a particular, narrow field of study.
DDT?
Oh wow Franklinpualie you truly ARE subhuman.
DDT wreaked havoc across the environmental spectrum. We are well rid of it.
I wish we could be well rid of you.
BlueJay looks for a really big flyswatter for Franklin.
BJ
I have never lied on this Blog, not once.
And, since you have trouble with this concept, let me help you:
Hardly anyone, in today’s economy, does the same thing for more than 5 to 10 years.
It is common to change jobs. If self-employed, it is common to change strategy and markets.
Those who “change” are moving with the economy and adapting. Those who get bitter and complain and do not learn?
They are much like YOU!
Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink
Ben
My point was that you do not have to talk down to everyone on this Blog.
You seem to think that your sheepskins certified everyone else as “stupid” rather than showing the humility that you have a specialized knowledge in a particular, narrow field of study.
================================================
Franklin, you are the KING of talking down to people. You claim absolute knowledge of everyone and everything political and financial. The problem is (kids, don’t try this at home), the KING wears no clothes.
And, as a side note –
Wouldn’t you have loved to be in the conference room of the March of Dimes the day they learned all their efforts had born fruit?
“Holy s#it! He’s cured it!
“Who? What!?”
“Salk! The sombitch came up with a cure!”
“For POLIO?! Uh-oh.”
“Yeah, this disease we’ve built this — heh-heh — ‘not-for-profit’ charity around has been conquered! We’re fuc#ed!”
“We had all that job security, raising money, getting FDR’s face on the dime, marching for dimes!!! We’re fuc#ed! I’ve got a wife and kids and a dog and a cat. It can’t be cured!”
“Actually, it’s not a ‘cure’ per se, but it’s a vaccine. It’ll prevent polio and will prevent the March of Dimes as an organization. It will prevent our jobs!”
“We need a new disease! We need a new disease!! Our jobs depend on it! The whole March of Dimes infrastructure’s at stake!”
“Two words: ‘Birth Defects.’”
“Birth Defects? What’re ‘birth defects?’”
“Nobody knows. Anything. Everything? Cleft palate? Club foot? Left-handedness? Anything!”
“It’s vague. It’s sympathetic. It’s not specific. I love it!”
“But we know polio. Can’t we just eliminate Salk or something?”
“Too late. The secret’s outta the bottle.”
“Damn.”
“Birth defects. I like it.”
“I have never lied on this Blog, not once.”
There you go,,,AGAIN… Franklin.
the KING wears no clothes.
—-
No kidding! And most of us, having caught a glimpse, won’t look again.
Thomas Friedman and the rest of the democrats keep trying to say that it has to be one or the other and the republicans are saying we can do both. For one thing, I remember them promising new energy sources back in the 70s and that is coming up on 40 years from now and still no new inventions.
So I am saying like the rest of the practical people in this world that we should be using the oil that we have and building new refineries and thereby creating new jobs while we wait for someone to come up with new ideas for energy.
However, if they keep teaching our kids nothing but stupid socialistic ideas and not how things work and how to build them, I doubt we will have any new inventions. I mean if this is what our education is like, how do you expect any new ideas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwy2VuA2V4
BJ
Banning DDT caused millions to die of malaria.
This is an historical fact.
DDT caused havoc all across the environment Franklin. THAT is a historical fact.
Ah, me…
“Franklin” is getting desperate with –
“The LIBERAL decision to ban DDT has caused more medical deaths than anything any conservative has ever done or failed to do.”
“…than ANYTHING“?
Yeah. And the chemical industry spent millions and millions of dollars to get the DDT ban repealed, rather than millions and millions of dollars to research and develop a mosquito insecticide that didn’t kill birds.
I gotta love the blood-in-the-water desperation that comes with, “…than ANYTHING ANY CONSERVATIVE HAS EVER DONE OR FAILED TO DO.”
That’s rich.
It’s so “Franklin.”
(Well. Maybe it’s just 44% “Franklin.” I’ll run the numbers and get back to ya.)
Banning DDT proves that liberals care more about hypothetical harm, to the environment, than they care about real live human beings.
DDT is NOW allowed, to kill mosquito born malaria:
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
The ban on DDT killed millions of human beings!
DDT is the only effect way to combat malaria:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html
Yes, well.
Franklin? We will look to see your concern for your fellow man on other threads.
I don’t think we will see you coming out for health care for poor kids or economic justice.
So ahead the fact, I’m gonna call your “compassion” an excuse. Also a diversion which I won’t play to further.
Oil is running out and that is a fact. We now have to invest money and blood fighting wars in distant places to secure the supply. To fight against getting beyond that is to me unAmerican. I do therefore in the court of my own personal opinion level the charge of treason at you Franklin.
Rachel Carson is a liar.
Carson’s book, “Silent Spring” is a complete fraud:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
BJ
You are a died in the wool Communist.
You don’t want to work for a living.
You resent those who invest, and creat jobs.
You are filled with envy and you loath anyone who has done better than you. (Which is just about everyone).
You cloth your Communist desire to tear down success with a bit of populist rhetoric, but you are still a Communist.
Communism has cause more death, starved more people, murdered more people than any other idea on Earth.
Oil will be a primary source of energy, in the United States, for at least another 50 years. Those who do not understand this point are dangerous.
e
well the e key works, don’t know what happened
Radical environmentalists, like Rachel Carson, hate human beings:
“Birds Vs. Human Deaths
Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”
Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”
Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
Friedman’s point contains validity that all the Republicans have this year is wedge issues. The economic crisis is even being spun along those lines. McCain has been saying this week that the fundamentals are strong because he believes in the American worker. Certainly, this is a weird way to be framing the problems that Wall Street executives are having with the system that they devised, along with help from politicians such as McCain. If McCain believes in the American worker, then he should consider measures that would help the American worker. Of late, what we’ve had instead is sizable corporate profits going to executives and investors. Workers are trying to maintain in the midst of inflationary pressures and an outsourcing environment. If they get laid off and get sick, it probably gets dicey pretty rapidly.
“Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink
Ben
My point was that you do not have to talk down to everyone on this Blog.”
And then we have:
“Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 11:21 am | Permalink
BJ
You are a died in the wool Communist.
You don’t want to work for a living.
You resent those who invest, and creat jobs.
You are filled with envy and you loath anyone who has done better than you. (Which is just about everyone).
You cloth your Communist desire to tear down success with a bit of populist rhetoric, but you are still a Communist.”
Pot – meet kettle.
Royall,
Are you really that dumb?
The “Wall Street Executives” in question, were almost all liberal Democrats who gave huge amounts of money to liberal causes and huge amounts of money to Democrat candidates.
bth
If you check the Blog, I called BJ a “Communist” right after BJ called me a “traitor” — the difference, of course, is that BJ IS a Communist.
The fundies know the end is near, so we just need to get by on what god’s given us until then. Technology and innovation are futuristic concepts, goes against the RW’s core beliefs.
So burn, baby, burn, or the updated drill, baby,drill.
I think a better analogy would be:
It is 1960 and the liberals are screaming that we need to stop using typewriters and get rid of them while there is no replacement.
Meanwhile, paperwork is piling up and everything is being done by hand instead of type because there are so many restrictions on the use and production of more typewriters.
The Conservatives are saying, Typewriters! We need more typewriters! At least until something else better comes along.
DDT was important for a while; better chemicals have since been developed to do the same things. Also, hygiene is important – we lost sight of that when we just sprayed everything.
Chemical pesticides can be a VERY good thing – BUT they must be respected. We lost sight of that and a number of bad human health effects have been the result.
Organo-phosphourus insecticides are great – but we better realize that they are basically the same thing as nerve gas.
Besides,
How is calling a Communist a Communist “talking down” to anyone?
I did not cite any sheepskin, any “peer reviewed” articles, any “scientific” method.
It is my considered opinion that BJ is a Communist.
Not that anyone, in any Communist country, could get along with BJ. Only that, in BJ’s own delusions, the grass is greener on the Communist side of the fence.
“the difference, of course, is that BJ IS a Communist”
BlueJay – are you a Communist?
Paul – you play your own version of ‘talking down’ with your idiocies like “Royall,
Are you really that dumb?” and “Those who do not understand this point are dangerous”
and the like.
Actually, the experts I posted, above, say that there is still NOTHING to take the place of DDT.
International leaders agree.
DDT is, thankfully, again allowed in areas with malaria concerns.
Paul – “You are obtuse.”
ben
The difference, when I insult someone?
I do not claim that the sheepskins on my wall give me the qualified ability to judge others, an ability that I deny anyone but myself — No, I do not do that.
Paul – I will agree that DDT has its place. However, we should use it with care. THAT has been the problem – it has been used far too indiscriminately. International scientists agree with me on that.
“Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 11:55 am | Permalink
ben
The difference, when I insult someone?
I do not claim that the sheepskins on my wall give me the qualified ability to judge others, an ability that I deny anyone but myself — No, I do not do that.”
True. You just claim that your superior intellect allows you to do that and say others have a second rate brain.
Oh yea – and that your insurance sales license made you super-qualified on anything and everything about the economy, energy and the environment.
“Ah Thomas, you naive liberal Pollyanna. OR
“Ah Thomas, you disingenuous partisan hack. OR
“Ah Thomas, you dummy.
“I wasn’t sure.”
Here is what all three of those ad hominems have in common.
“I don’t really know anything about Thomas Friedman.”
Not to mention:
“I got nothing except mindless ad hominems.”
I remember the “political capital” that Bush intended to spend in ‘05. He and his ally McCain were hot to privatize Social Security. I was glad in ‘05 when they lost that fight, and my mind went back to it with yesterday’s announcement and all the gurus of finance turning up on TV of late in dismal states of mind and body. When things go bad, buyouts tend to benefit the executive level. Workers? Not so much.
“It is my considered opinion that BJ is a Communist.”
I haven’t seen much evidence that you have a considered opinion on much of anything.
“Radical environmentalists, like Rachel Carson, hate human beings:”
You really have no concern for anything other than advancing your own political agenda do you?
No honor. No integrity. Say anything. That’s Franklin.
“BlueJay – are you a Communist?”
No I would actually be more of a social democrat.
Franklin IS a traitor. He cares nothing about his country or fellow Americans. His religion and his patriotism are only to the almighty dollar. He has no core convictions of his own but only the marching orders of the market and his business masters.
“Oil will be a primary source of energy, in the United States, for at least another 50 years. Those who do not understand this point are dangerous.”
Ya know? I bet there were people who shilled the same thing about whale oil or the horse driven wagon.
Because they were invested NOT in their country or it’s future, but in their own self interest.
Franklin is as capable of insulting me as a bit of dog pooh I accidentally step on in the yard. But he does damage my country. He is, in MY own personal definition, a traitor not just to America but to knowledge and humanity. The lowest form of life it is my unfortunate time to share space on this Earth with.
“Franklin is as capable of insulting me as a bit of dog pooh I accidentally step on in the yard.”
I like the analogy – a good description of Paul.
Imagine it is 1870. The liberals are screaming that we have to get rid of horses and come up with something better for individual transport.
So, until we come up with something better, no more horses!
You can all walk.
Technology is great. It is even better if we use what we have at the moment until it can be replaced rather than blindly get rid of it in the hopes a replacement will come.
The simple fact is that right now we use oil for most of our transportation needs. Period.
Maybe 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years later from now we will have something better.
But now? Drill!
It is like we are trapped in a warehouse and all we have to eat at the moment is a bunch of boxed food in the corner.
The liberals are saying we should sit around and starve to death until we come up with something better than eating the boxed food.
It makes no sense.
http://www.new-cue.org/quetchenbach%20thoreau%20ASLE.pdf
Republicans are on the run in this election, and all they have left is Nixonian nonsense. Oh, and Franklin to carry the message for them.
BlueJay,
Guess what, those things were not simply gotten rid of. They were replaced by better things.
As soon as something better comes along, we can replace oil.
Until then, starving ourselves is foolish.
People were not forced to get rid of their horses 10 years before anyone ever considered the automobile.
They were gradually phased out as cars became better and more affordable.
You liberals are basically saying that we should have stopped horse production 10 years before the car was even invented.
Brilliant!
I have an idea.
Why don’t you liberals all stop driving anything that uses oil until something better is made?
“Guess what, those things were not simply gotten rid of. They were replaced by better things.”
But then, AS now, there was powerful lobby and lots of money invested in protecting the status quo.
In holding back.
That is ever MORE so true today.
Nathan, when last we faced this crisis, you were likely not yet born. I myself was only a kid.
Back then, folks like Franklin and to a lesser degree stacists like you kicked the problem down the road.
Just as I said earlier.
Well I’m not in favor of holding back the future. I don’t have a financial stake in handing my son the problems my parents handed me.
“Why don’t you liberals all stop driving anything that uses oil until something better is made?”
I am looking right now at converting my light truck to natural gas. Early reading suggests it is surprisingly easy to do. I encourage others to look into it as well.
BEFORE big oil gets hold and monopolizes or kills it.
This week, all of a sudden the vaudevillian actor McCain came out from behind the curtain as an economic populist.
These days, McCain just can’t get it out of his mouth on enough occasions how much he supports the affairs of working people. Meanwhile, his campaign narrative has been repeatedly denounced for its mendacity. McCain’s own conservative columnists have turned on him.
McCain loves working people enough to sell them a bill of goods.
Well I checked in long enough to have my laugh for the day and now I am checking out footballs games to see if the Sooners are on today. Hope so. This blog has become boring. Kind of like reruns everyday with just a change in the subject of the attack on conservatives. Then the liberals pile on and say absolutely nothing and high fiving each other for their sparkling wit meanwhile slapping themselves on the back and predicting success in November for their side.
Isay bring on the vote. Conservatives are ready.
Have a good day.
P.S. I won’t say BJ is a communist because that would mean that he actually has coherrent thoughts and is capable of reaching a conclusion. I will say that if you list all of the traits that are shared with a card carrying communists and BJ there isn’t much difference at all.
I’m looking forward to seeing the Volt when it comes out. Perhaps it will give me an option. In the meanwhile I strive for efficiency with available technology – that is why I have an American made Honda.
bth
Posted September 20, 2008 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Oh yea – and that your insurance sales license made you super-qualified on anything and everything about the economy, energy and the environment.
—
Except the day that his one-sheeter Super Duper Insurance Salesman tax info sheet let him down, and revealed to all that he’s clueless about tax forms. I guess his underwriters probably frown on turning loose their salesmen with even a biz calculator….which it must be said reminds me of a certain fictional deputy and his bullets. Er, bullet.
That was hilarious. Not as funny as the day that you know who claimed that his status as a former HAZMAT inspector, who in general are famous of course for their “hippocratic oath” to “do no harm” when it comes to using their possible undergrad science education in public discussions, to talk down to, say, people like you who hold PhDs. From UCLA to boot.
I don’t think anything will top that day, but the one-sheeter day sure came close!
Yeah, I’m OK not drilling for more oil and waiting on the inventors to invent a new energy supply – as long as Brownlee is OK with:
a) $10/gal gasoline, and shortages, while we wait for the inventors to do their thing.
b) $500/month heating and cooling bills, and shortages, while we wait for the inventors to do their thing.
c) Not btiching about high prices and shortages, while we wait for the inventors to do their thing. (I don’t want to read ANY articles from Brownlib about how we should have maintained an oil supply as an interim energy policy strategy)
d) Not btiching about the high price of the new alternative energy that is invented. The “new” energy will most likely have a higher cost then what we are paying today.
But of course we all know that Brownlib will btich about a) through d) above. Brownlib is your typical Leftist, he wants Something for Nothing. And, he wants SOMEONE ELSE to pay for him.
okob – haven’t checked all the schedules but I think OU has a bye this week. I’m sort of looking forward to Georgia-ASU tonight.
GO DAWGS!
Nathaniel
Posted September 20, 2008 at 11:50 am | Permalink
I think a better analogy would be:
It is 1960 and the liberals are screaming that we need to stop using typewriters and get rid of them while there is no replacement.
Meanwhile, paperwork is piling up and everything is being done by hand instead of type because there are so many restrictions on the use and production of more typewriters.
The Conservatives are saying, Typewriters! We need more typewriters! At least until something else better comes along.
===============================================================
Or it could be 1875, and the Libs are calling for the elimination of horses, waiting for a new mode of automated workhorse to be developed.
Meanwhile, for the next 50 years, people just walked.
Nathaniel
Posted September 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
I have an idea.
Why don’t you liberals all stop driving anything that uses oil until something better is made?
===============================================
I kinda thought that’s what invent, baby, invent, was all about. So we wouldn’t be so dependent on oil. When American minds are put to task, they can do amazing things. Just remember, that Liberal President, JFK, said we would walk on the moon, and we did it. Pretty cool, huh?
He sure doesn’t have a running mate who can help him look better on things economical. Even if he and his running mate had policies and solutions they can’t cover twice as much ground since to appear separately would show how small the crowds he attracts are and how shallow her prepared speech sounds after it’s heard several times.
Franklin
Posted September 20, 2008 at 11:27 am | Permalink
Radical environmentalists, like Rachel Carson, hate human beings:
=================================================
If you consider as human beings those who have a total disregard for their environment, then yes, you are correct.
#
BlueJay
Posted September 20, 2008 at 10:32 am | Permalink
“I have never lied on this Blog, not once.”
There you go,,,AGAIN… Franklin.
—————-
FALSE!
You lie constantly about who I am and what I am.
You lie most of the time about other bloggers.
Therefore, you are a chronic liar.
BlueJay,
Why wait to convert your truck?
Stop driving now and actually stand up for the principles you believe in and want to force on everyone else!
Walk to work or walk to the store until you can provide yourself transportation without oil.
Also, stop eating food or using any other goods transported with vehicles that used oil!
Stand by your principles!
JM Walker,
I agree. Lets invent. And as soon as something better is developed and ready to be implemented, lets drill for more oil.
Yeah Linda!
Because we all know that being able to read well from a telepormpter is the only thing that is a real qualification, according to you liberals, to be President.
*EYE ROLL*
“Walk to work or walk to the store”
I just got back from WALKING to the store.
Regular?
Jimmuh? Try reading THEN reacting. I haven’t ever lied here but I ALSO don’t go around all the time screaming about it as Franklin did. He’s a liar.
You’re just mentally disturbed!
JFK was no Liberal.
#
BlueJay
Posted September 20, 2008 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
“Walk to work or walk to the store”
I just got back from WALKING to the store.
Regular?
Jimmuh? Try reading THEN reacting. I haven’t ever lied here but I ALSO don’t go around all the time screaming about it as Franklin did. He’s a liar.
You’re just mentally disturbed!
—————-
You constantly lie Junior.
You are the worst liar on the blog.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
From a Liberal President?
But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. And I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in xxxx.
I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
Under these circumstances, any new tax legislation — and you can understand that under the comity which exists in the United States Constitution whereby the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives have the responsibility of initiating this legislation, that the details of any proposal should wait on the meeting of the Congress in January. But you can understand that, under these circumstances, in general, that any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests:
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.
Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.
For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
The Moon landing was a Hoax! I’m sure I can find some web site that will support that!
Mccain would return us to the past, Obama will bridge us between the present and the future with regards to energy independence.
An insane old gimp who lives with his sister (how weird is that about BOTH of them?) says I’m a liar.
Yeah I can live with that.
Ya lost this one cons. Why is it you suppose big oil and energy are running up our costs to fund the BILLIONS in ads they are running telling us what good guys they are?
They KNOW that this time we will not be kicking the problem down the road.
I honestly feel sorry for you cons that you are not more hopeful than greedy and stodgy.
It’s a new century and TIME for new ideas. That is exciting to me.
It’s rough for you? My advice is, think bigger than yourselves.
That is, if you can.
Too nice a day to fight a battle that the forces of change and innovation have already WON.
Monkey opines,
“Perhaps you missed the portion of the original post which said, “Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power…”?
I didn’t miss anything Monkey, but if we are throwing “all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power…”, by definition of the of the sentence inself we have nothing else to throw into securing more oil.
That’s my point, sure go after new sources but don’t ignore present needs or will really be pushed off the hind teat.
Ben I guess I will have to depend on the blog for entertainment today. Not only does OU have a bye so does Ok state. I checking the schedules now to find a good alternative source of entertainment.
The 12:53pm quote is from,
drum rolllllllllllllllll,
J F K
BlueJay,
That is great. Now get rid of your truck. Don’t use it all.
From JFK:
“In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.”
The reason we say: “Drill, baby, Drill!”
Is because it is much more practical and will actually do something for our problems now.
Saying: “Invent, baby, Invent” will not put gas in my truck, or power our huge transportation infrastructure at this moment.
Next time you are at the gas pump, ask yourself what will help you NOW:
Inventing something or having more oil?
Keep in mind that I already inflated my tires properly, so now what?
From JFK:
There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great bottlenecks for this country’s economic growth in this decade will be the shortages of doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics — a serious shortage with a great demand and an undersupply of highly trained manpower. [b]We can and must step up the development of our natural resources.[/b]
As I said, it is like we are sitting next to a large pile of food starving to death.
Instead of simply eating that food the liberals are telling us to starve to death while we think of something better.
The comparisons of Obama to JFK can now be:
Laughed At!
I rest my case, JFK was no Liberal.
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”– John F. Kennedy
Max – the JFK cut was far on the other side of the Laffer cirve than we are at today. As I recall he cut the 90% rate he inherited from Republicans to about 70% top rate.
BJ says “Ya lost this one cons. Why is it you suppose big oil and energy are running up our costs to fund the BILLIONS in ads they are running telling us what good guys they are?”
BJ when the libs actually do something then I will give you permission to gloat. All we have from the libs are promises of things to come. Well I promise you that someday I will buy you a winning lottery ticket. Better not go spend the cash yet though.
That is what the libs are doing – promising pie in the sky for ‘tomorrow’ but no plan for what to do today. We live in the now. Dreams are for nonachievers. Actions are for today. Drill now!
“MaxGrobnik
Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
The comparisons of Obama to JFK can now be:
Laughed At”
You are correct – there were those who laughed at JFK for saying we could put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
Here’s an idea for PB and the others at WEblog who give us these daily dog bones to chew on. Why not leave Thomas Friedman and Bob Herbert and anyone else associated with the NY Times where they belong? Buried in the catacombs of the Times Building where the enormity of their irrelevance is matched only by their inflated egos and their diminished IQs. Did you not get the memo down there on East Douglass that the NY Times no longer sets the agenda of debate in this Country?
If you wpuld look around you a little bit, you might see that there is a whole slew of folks out there writing on todays political scene. Would it be to much to ask to occasionally have a column from, oh I don’t know, Phylis Schlafly, or David Limbaugh, or Joseph Farah or any of the other hundreds of people who write from all over the political spectrum? Why must we be treated to a daily dose of he same old Democrat Party hacks posing as serious journalists? Since 3/4ths of the regular posters on this site are left wing idealogues, why not give them something to actually stimulate their minds instead of the typical leftist dogma that they regurgitate daily. Maybe then this blog site wouldn’t be so BORING.
Then Sen. John F. Kennedy recognized the intent of the founding fathers “fears of governmental tyranny” and “security of the nation” in his statement Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960),
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Security_against_tyranny_and_invasion_arguments
Yup, Obama is no JFK.
Laugh at those who try to make that comparison.
It’s more like when the govt. funded and developed the atom bomb. Today’s nay sayers would’ve said ‘we don’t need a new bomb, we already have bombs, we just need to build more of them, and more planes to drop them with, and more pilots and bombing crews’ analogy would have to provide for a limited/depleted amount of raw materials to build the regular bombs/planes, to make it comparable.
bth
Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
“MaxGrobnik
Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
The comparisons of Obama to JFK can now be:
Laughed At”
You are correct – there were those who laughed at JFK for saying we could put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
=========================================================
Wow, talk about taking words out of context!
Try again bth. (Are you the sister of BTK?)
Yeah, and when the US was making the A-bomb, at the same time, the US continued to make:
Ships
Guns
Ammo
Planes
And other conventional weapons.
And even AFTER the A-bomb was perfected, the US continued to make:
Ships
Guns
Ammo
Planes
Why?
Because the NEW TECHNOLOGY could not Replace the OLD TECHNOLOGY!
Libs, let go of that bird in your hand,
and go get that bird in the bush!
Chris I certainly have to agree with what you are saying. Everyday PB starts the day with a bash conservative thread and the libs start:
BJ writes one of his inciteful ‘I hate anyone who lives better than I do and can pay their own bills and insure their own children and gives jobs to those seeking them and uses oil to fuel their vehicles’and the battle is on.
The libs all say, me too, me too, me too, me too, me too and the conservatives have been soundly defeated in the dims minds.
Then the names start. Anyone who makes a good point is called a liar. This is echoed by the entire left wing of the blog.
The right then tries to defend their position from the name callers and another empty day at WEblog is history.
We are all more capable than this.
The Queen in Waiting, says there’s ‘nuthin’ “a little shakin’ ‘n’ fixin in Washington” won’t fix, wrong with this economy!
Well max you overlooked the little caveat that the raw materials would’ve had to of been depleted and scarce, to make the analogy comparable.
Well, this is great. I’m no great fan of Friedman, but what he’s saying is only common sense. Even the petroleum industry “gets” it–they know that they can’t rid high on fossil fuels for much longer.
Don’t try to tell that to the oil-worshippers. It’s so deliciously ironic, given that for years they’ve falsely (and stupidly) accused environmentalsts of being Luddites (a view that never really had any basis in reality).
Now we can see who the real Luddites are.
Speaking on inventing … will K-State invent another approach for their football team next week?
Well gee, after they go get the oil out of the OCS, the wells on the main land will have rejuveniated, and they can just go back and get that oil!
“With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.
It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.”
As you can see there are two trains of thought on the supply of oil available. I have talked with many geologist that tell me this same thing. The USGS isn’t a kook organization. It is a recognized organization made up of experienced and knowledgeable geologists.
Why do the libs have such a hard time accepting that there are discenting opinions from there worn out ones.
This is a very good site showing the amount of reserves left, the danger of oil spills, where the reserves are, etc…
http://www.offshore-environment.com/facts.html
It doesn’t show the libs or cons as right or wrong bit does give some honest upfront information.
okobserver posted September 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“That is what the libs are doing – promising pie in the sky for ‘tomorrow’ but no plan for what to do today. We live in the now. Dreams are for nonachievers. Actions are for today. Drill now!”
—————
Nathaniel posted September 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The reason we say: “Drill, baby, Drill!”
Is because it is much more practical and will actually do something for our problems now.
Saying: “Invent, baby, Invent” will not put gas in my truck, or power our huge transportation infrastructure at this moment.
Next time you are at the gas pump, ask yourself what will help you NOW:
Inventing something or having more oil?
Keep in mind that I already inflated my tires properly, so now what?
————–
Become more energy efficient.
“Drill, baby, Drill!” is NOT “now”.
It will not produce the first trickle of oil for about a decade, and production is NOT guaranteed.
We can cut oil demand much more sharply, and sooner, with higher energy efficiency than drilling. It is also much cheaper.
We proved in the early 1980’s that we could sharply cut oil demand with higher energy efficiency — and we can do it again with newer materials and technology
But okobserver and Nathaniel insist on ignoring the facts, reality, and plans.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Ben I am a little down on Kan. football this week and planned to yell for OU. What a team they have this year!
They are going to have to play football this week to earn my respect back.
DRILL IN DETROIT! NOW!
DRILL IN DETROIT! NOW!
DRILL IN DETROIT! NOW!
‘Drilling in Detroit ‘
Tapping Automaker Ingenuity to Build Safe and Efficient Automobiles
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/drilling-in-detroit.html
THE BIGGEST SINGLE STEP the United States can take to curb global warming and save oil is to raise the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks.
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/biggestsinglestep/
In this section:
* Introduction
* Innovative Technology Can Help Free Us From Our Dangerous Oil Dependence
* We Can Safely Improve Our Fuel Economy
* Creating Clean Cars In America Creates Jobs At Home
* Take Action!
You know Cosmos you give that same tired argument about the ‘ten’ years needed for production and yet we are already benefiting from the oil in the Dakotas which was drilled recently.
Your idea that it will take 10 years for results always reminds me of something I was told years ago.
Someone said if I go back to school it will take me ten years to finally get my degree and someone asked them if they didn’t go back to school how many years would it take to get their degree?
We need to be acting now. Inventions, new technolegy, alternative energies all have their place but if we aren’t acting now then we won’t have an economy to rescue. You just refuse to listen to what people are saying and and are a one trick pony.
Well said Chrisfrommactown. There are so many conservative editors out there that they could be using than these same old libs. I think maybe there problem is, they know that the democrats couldn’t handle a decent debate coming from the other side. They would probably react like the teacher from Hays that I had a link to in my last post.
Cosmos with your many links readily at hand I have to believe you are a plant for GW advocates. You have lost all credibility with me. Have you ever had an original thought that is all your own without a link to tell you what you should think?
The CONs fell deep into their reductio ad absurdum fallacies early and often today.
Nobody’s gonna take away your oil, “Boxlock.” Nobody’s gonna outlaw your rusty ol’ ‘78 Torino*, “Nathaniel.”
* The one with the “No Fat Chicks” bumper sticker holding up the rear bumper.
All we’re saying is: instead of your tax dollars going into the pockets of the most profitable corporations in the history of capitalism, we divert those subsidies from a mature, non-renewable, 19th Century technology and help renewable, innovative, and environmentally-friendly 21st Century technologies develop infrastructure, logistics, and delivery strategies ’til they achieve economies of scale.
Or maybe we take that corporate welfare away from Exxon-Mobil and fund research into dealing with nuclear waste in a more productive way than simply burying it a hole for 10,000 years. I mean, if it’s got enough energy to kill ya for 10,000 years, maybe there’s some researcher who can come up with a way to, y’know, USE that fuel for 10,000 years.
You CONs and your “Drill Now!” mantra are so oblivious to the realities of the energy problem. You want to give Chevron and Shell and Conoco-Phillips your tax dollars so they can buy more leases to not develop into productive wells and fields. Why should they stop at the 64 million acres of explored, tested, licensed…AND UN-DEVELOPED leases in the United States they already have? And aren’t drilling. Here. And now.
okobserver posted September 20, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“The USGS isn’t a kook organization. It is a recognized organization made up of experienced and knowledgeable geologists.”
————-
Sarah Palin LIED about only a “little 2,000 acre plot of land” being needed to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4
“According to the U.S. Geological Survey, possible oil reserves may be located in many small accumulations in complex geological formations, rather than in one giant field as was discovered at Prudhoe Bay. Consequently, development in the 1002 Area could likely require a large number of small production sites spread across the Refuge landscape, connected by an infrastructure of roads, pipelines, power plants, processing facilities, loading docks, dormitories, airstrips, gravel pits, utility lines and landfills.”
————-
Here’s a map of what Sarah Palin’s “little 2,000 acre plot(sic) of land” could look like.
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
okobserver posted September 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“You know Cosmos you give that same tired argument about the ‘ten’ years needed for production and yet we are already benefiting from the oil in the Dakotas which was drilled recently.”
————–
Has that oil caused world oil prices to drop?
Will it produce so much that OPEC can cut their production, and preserve their oil for the future?
It will take about a decade to possibly produce oil from the Arctic Refuge.
It will take many years to produce from OCS.
We are guaranteed to cut demand more quickly, and sharper, by simply “Drilling in Detroit”.
But ignore the facts if you want to, okobserver. Pretend that possible production, many years from today, is “now”.
MaxGrobnik
Posted September 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
Yup, Obama is no JFK.
Laugh at those who try to make that comparison.
================================================
. . . and JFK was no conservative. In case you don’t remember, max, things were just a bit different in the early sixties than they are today. JFK was considered a Liberal in his day. That doesn’t changes as time goes by. But it does show just how conservatism has changed since those days. Conservatism was alive then; it’s pretty much dead now. Just read any of Franklin’s posts.
If the “Big 3″ automakers (notably GM and the EV-1) had followed up on their electric car tachnologies of over a decade ago we would have them on the road today. That would have much more impact on oil that the Arctic of offshore.
okobserver posted September 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Cosmos with your many links readily at hand I have to believe you are a plant for GW advocates. You have lost all credibility with me. Have you ever had an original thought that is all your own without a link to tell you what you should think?”
————–
okobserver, unlike you, I carefully research an issue before forming my opinion. I use the links I’ve found to support my opinion.
And since you people keep repeating the same falsehoods, lies, etc over and over again, I keep the links in text files, for quick access.
I couldn’t care less if my “many links readily at hand” upsets your delicate sensibilities.
Ben,
Amory Lovins calculated that increasing the light vehicle fleet mileage by only 0.4 mpg would save about 3.2 BILLION barrels of oil during a 30-year period (approx lifetime of an oil field).
We could easily increase mpg much more than that, plus reduce demand in heavy vehicles and other areas.
Phony wedge issue
Phony baloney. no one is opposed to some drilling. But no one (who has any sense of reality) thinks drilling in the US will advance us in any significant way at all.
David – agreed. But the oil shills want us to believe them. That way when drilling fails to produce what they are selling our addiction will be as strong as ever.
okobserver,
Nathaniel,
or any other (foolish) “Drill, baby, Drill!” advocates,
Would you like to try refuting the facts here? EIA links at bottom of page.
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/PennyaGallon20yrs1.pdf
“The latest EIA report predicts that when Arctic Refuge oil is at or near peak (2025), prices at the pump would only be affected by only a few pennies per gallon. 3″
———–
That small price drop assumes that OPEC does not countermand by reducing their production.
OPEC wants the U.S. to “Drill, baby, Drill!”
OPEC does not want the U.S. to become more energy efficient, and also switch to alternatives.
“BJ writes one of his inciteful ‘I hate anyone who lives better than I do and can pay their own bills and insure their own children and gives jobs to those seeking them and uses oil to fuel their vehicles’and the battle is on.”
I only hate cons, industry shills,
and cranky old granny fans that follow me around and call me names while THEY call for civility.
Sheesh does conservative thinking REALLY mean LIMITED thinking? Must be.
Petrochemical fuels are impractical, even obscene when you consider just how valuable and vital other petrochemical products like plastic are.
There is a limited and dwindling supply of petroleum. SOMEBODY is gonna have to invent away from burning it up in cars. The United States may as well lead the way and reap the benefits.
Ben,
Re the GM Volt, Bob Lutz used the very bogus OISM petition to deny AGW, on Stephen Colbert’s show.
‘GM Vice-chair touts “Volt” but still denies climate science‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/gm-vice-chair-touts-volt-but-still-denies-climate-science
The video is funny — a 40-mile extension cord, charging the Volt by plugging into a Hummer, etc.
To watch the video (in the U.S.), click the link at “UPDATE:” here,
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/09/17/lutz-remains-a-putz-on-global-warming-denial/
cosmos – I saw that. I rememebr OISM from many years ago. They claimed to have the person who “invented” C-14 on their board. I wrote to them thinking it would be interesting to ‘compare notes’ since Bill Libby had been on my Thesis Committee”
“He became well-known at University of Chicago for his work on natural carbon-14 (radiocarbon) and its use in dating archaeological artifacts, and natural tritium, and its use in hydrology and geophysics.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1960/libby-bio.html
Willard F. Libby
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1960
I never heard from anyone there about C-14 but they did try to recruit me. However, as I explored their web site – creationism among other things – I definitely declined.
Ben,
OISM even mailed their last petition out to dead people — I skimmed over one that had mailed to someone who had died over a decade earlier.
It’s hard to understand how people can be so gullible (dumb?) that they believe an online and snail-mailed petition is “science”.
It’s hard to understand how people can be so gullible (dumb?) that they believe an online and snail-mailed petition is “science”.
I saw that guy on Colbert. Talk about mixed feelings.
Most people are not ranting here, or elsewhere. They take a great deal at face value. So they saw a guy on Colbert touting an electric car and anti-scientific nonsense at the same time.
I give Colbert credit for doing what he could without stepping too far outside of his character. He’s been engaging in that ironic balancing act for the history of his character, but this one had to be a real bitch.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted September 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
Ben,
OISM even mailed their last petition out to dead people — I skimmed over one that had mailed to someone who had died over a decade earlier.
It’s hard to understand how people can be so gullible (dumb?) that they believe an online and snail-mailed petition is “science”.
—————————
How would you know what science is cosmos?
Your degree isn’t a science major and you are not a scientist.
You get your science from the Internet and ‘Op Ed’ pieces.
I doubt seriously you’d even know how to read a scientific paper objectively without drawing some far left conclusion.
For you cosmos, science is about pushing a political agenda. Nothing you write here has been objective science. What you write here cosmos are the blithering posts of a political hack.
And more stupid, irrelevant ad hominems from the multi-nic’d IH engineer, “Kansas Values” Regular.
How would you know what science is cosmos?
Assuming you actually have some clue as to cosmos’ credentials, it’s funny how this view isn’t shared by most technical professionals on this forum (including several who are Piled High and Deep).
“It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue ”
Democrat parties forte’.
#
Rage
Posted September 20, 2008 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
How would you know what science is cosmos?
Assuming you actually have some clue as to cosmos’ credentials, it’s funny how this view isn’t shared by most technical professionals on this forum (including several who are Piled High and Deep).
——————
cosmos has already admitted on this blog that he took “some” science in college. Most likely the usual biology and elementary chemistry, if that much.
As I said before, I have several PhD scientists in my family. They would never make a statements like Ben that they know for sure about Climate Change. Ben is just emphasizing way too much weight on political bias and not science.
As far as cosmos goes, it’s clear he is not a scientist. I’ve read the science reports from the scientists and no where in their scientific papers do they claim with absolute certainty that certain climate events is caused by man. They assign probabilities and the main reason they assign probabilities is that they only have a small understanding of the totality of what occurs in a complex climate system.
The spin put on by Global Warmers is pathetic.
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 20, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“cosmos has already admitted on this blog that he took “some” science in college. Most likely the usual biology and elementary chemistry, if that much.”
———
No, I did not post that. That’s what multi-nic’d posted about his own Industrial Hygiene engineering education.
All that multi-nic’d has is ad hominems and lies.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted September 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm | Permalink
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 20, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“cosmos has already admitted on this blog that he took “some” science in college. Most likely the usual biology and elementary chemistry, if that much.”
———
No, I did not post that. That’s what multi-nic’d posted about his own Industrial Hygiene engineering education.
All that multi-nic’d has is ad hominems and lies.
—————–
Yes you did cosmos, don’t lie about it now, I distinctly remember it.
All that multi-nic’d has is ad hominems and lies.
“, I have several PhD scientists in my family.”
Uh yeah, I’m gonna call BS on that.
Unless you’d you know, care to prove it?
Just a cursory look, there is extensive research from the ground up at getting away from oil. From the grassroots up, just like innovation has always come.
Now all we have to do is get the fossilized fossil fuels people out of the way so it can grow.
And hell Jimmuh, you don’t drive that much anyway. Too? They’d PROBABLY send a van for you as opposed to letting you on the road.
The first step is to drill now. We need to convince the anti American democrats in the congress and senate to allow US companies to drill now.
Then we can worry about invent now.
Keep in mind the invent now will have to be done with the products of a school system that is more into indoctrination and acceptance of evil than education.
Hence why our scores in relationship to the rest of the world are in the toliet.
“Kandisue” gives us –
“The first step is to drill now. We need to convince the anti American democrats in the congress and senate to allow US companies to drill now.”
Please try to keep up, “Kandisue.”
Even before the Congress authorized off-shore drilling a couple of weeks ago, American oil companies were sitting on top of 64 million acres of leases that had already been authorized, licensed, and ready-to-drill… but have gone undeveloped.
These are the same companies that currently export 1.8 million barrels of American oil — per day — to China.
Now how would you propose to make those 1.8 million barrels of American oil stay in the United States? Show your work.
Kandisue posted September 20, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“The first step is to drill now. We need to convince the anti American democrats in the congress and senate to allow US companies to drill now.”
—————-
“Drill now” = waiting years for the first trickle, waiting more years for peak production, and then running dry (like Prudhoe Bay).
Higher energy efficiency is much faster, and is the only viable solution.
Lot of info here,
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/
For example, read this, and note the graph.
‘Clean Energy: The Solution to High Gas Prices’
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gaspricesolutions.pdf
“Newly updated NRDC analysis shows that the oil savings from clean energy measures can far outpace the potential oil production of drilling in America’s protected areas.”
Cosmos,
When you and your liberal friends have been doing everything you can to block more oil for the past 20 years, your argument that it will take time before drilling will help becomes rather absurd.
Nevermind the fact that everyday more drilling is being done all over the country.
If we followed your logic (more correctly, complete lack of logic) we would not even have half the oil we do now because drilling takes to long… so why bother.
“Nathaniel” –
65 million acres of already-explored, already permitted, ready-to-drill leases that Big Oil chooses not to develop.
1.8 million barrels of American oil exported to China every day.
More off-shore drilling approved by Congress a couple of weeks ago.
And the CONs still insist on sending $15 billion a year of taxpayers’ money to the most profitable corporations in the history of capitalism.
Do the math.
(Or, since you’re an ex-Marine, boy, tap out the answer in the dust with your hoof.)
“Ben is just emphasizing way too much weight on political bias and not science.”
That is simply a blatant false statement. I rely upon the literature; not plitical surces. That is why I worked so hard to get my mind around PAST climate cycles (Milankovitch) which have absolutely nothing to do with politics. It was only AFTER I did that that I became convinced about anthropogenic climate change tody. And, the more I read – including what you and other ‘deniers’ link here – the more I am convinced that (a) it is real and (b) it will be increasingly bad.
I am actually more likely to follow an ‘anti’ link and read it than I am one of Cosmos links. And as for Gore’s movie – I agree with Dr. Masters that it is accurate but I found it boring … and too conservative.
MonkeyHawk,
Simply having access to land doesn’t mean there is oil under it or that it is profitable to develop or reach.
Oil is traded and sold on the market. How exactly do you propose to stop the export of oil?
If we are porducing more here that is less we have to import either way.
Why is it that instead of simply supporting more drilling you liberals look for any and every reason to not?
You liberals will reach for anything that is an excuse to not drill.
That is exacly why we are where we are today.
And by the way, taking less money from a company is not taking the “taxpayers money.”
Nathaniel posted September 20, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“Cosmos,
When you and your liberal friends have been doing everything you can to block more oil for the past 20 years, your argument that it will take time before drilling will help becomes rather absurd.
Nevermind the fact that everyday more drilling is being done all over the country.
If we followed your logic (more correctly, complete lack of logic) we would not even have half the oil we do now because drilling takes to long… so why bother.”
—————-
Nathaniel, that’s your response to this graph???
“Clean Energy” versus “Lower 48 OCS Protected Areas + Arctic Refuge Production”
at,
‘Clean Energy: The Solution to High Gas Prices’
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gaspricesolutions.pdf
“Newly updated NRDC analysis shows that the oil savings from clean energy measures can far outpace the potential oil production of drilling in America’s protected areas.”
————
And Nathaniel does not seem to care that new drilling might, at best, replace our declining domestic oil sources. I guess that he likes the status quo?
Nathaniel posted September 20, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“If we are porducing more here that is less we have to import either way.”
————-
If we reduce demand with higher energy efficiency that is “less we have to import” AND also less that we have to produce domestically!
And efficiency is cheaper than more drilling (which also depletes our puny oil reserves more rapidly).
The first country on this planet that figures out how to wrest itself from the grip of fossil fuel dependence will OWN the 21st century. Will it be us? Such an initiative could be our generation’s version of the race to the moon. And, IIRC, that turned out pretty good for the ol’ US of A.
We still need oil in the interim, but like Pickens says in his plan, it needs to be a bridge, and I’ll add not a bridge to nowhere…
Honda will extend retail sales of its all-new compressed natural gas (CNG) 2006 Civic GX to New York this fall.
Honda already markets the Civic GX to fleet operators with their own fueling stations, and has begun offering the Civic GX and the Phill home natural-gas refueling appliance to its customers at select dealers in California. The Civic GX is the only dedicated natural-gas-powered passenger vehicle available to retail customers in the United States.
Based on the 2006 Civic, the Civic GX achieves a city/highway EPA-rated fuel economy of 28/39 miles per gasoline-gallon equivalent (gge) and meets federal Tier 2-Bin 2 and ILEV zero-evaporative emission certification standards. The Civic GX is the only vehicle certified by the EPA to meet both of these emission standards.
2006_civic_gx_engine
2006 Civic GX
Equipped standard with a 5-speed automatic transmission, the 1.8-liter, 4-cylinder engine delivers 115 hp (86 kW) and 148 Nm of torque, both an increase of more than 10% versus the previous model.
Natural gas is approximately 25% less expensive than gasoline when purchased at a refueling station, and approximately 50% cheaper than gasoline when supplied by a home refueling appliance, according to Honda.
An overnight refill from Phill supports a GX driving range of about 250 miles.
In addition to convenient refueling, Civic GX owners are eligible for tax breaks and incentives of up to $4,000 for the car and up to $1,000 for the purchase and installation of Phill. Both GX and Phill benefit from the federal tax credits enacted Jan 1, 2006, for clean alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/honda_to_extend.html
===================================================
We have an abundance of natural gas. It’s cheaper, cleaner, and gets good mileage. Engines will last longer, require less oil changes, run cooler and pollute less. Convert to natural gas, and drilling for oil becomes less important.
Just how abundant is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Natural_gas_production_world.PNG
Shows just how much and where it is: Everywhere.
“Nathaniel” responds –
“Simply having access to land doesn’t mean there is oil under it or that it is profitable to develop or reach.”
You choose to forget that those 65 million acres of undeveloped leases have been explored and approved by all permitting and licensing agencies. The oil is there. It’s ready to pump. Big Oil chooses to sit on those resources rather than bring them into production.
“Oil is traded and sold on the market. How exactly do you propose to stop the export of oil?”
That’s your problem, boy. “Drill Here, Burn Here” is — by your own admission — a spit-in-the-ocean policy that fits on a bumper sticker, but makes no sense in a multinational global commodities market. If every one of those 65 million acres of available American oil resources were producing today, the difference would amount to about 3 cents per gallon at the pump.
“If we are porducing more here that is less we have to import either way.”
If we stopped exporting 1.8 million barrels of American oil per day, we’d have 1.8 million fewer barrels of American oil to import.
Now, as multi-national corporations that have proven to be the most profitable companies in the history of capitalism, maybe even your spit-in-the-ocean 3-cents-per-gallon savings is significant to you, boy.
But from here, your ideology has gotten in the way of logic and reality.
“Why is it that instead of simply supporting more drilling you liberals look for any and every reason to not?”
Congress just approved more off-shore drilling. You’re not even trying, boy! You need to come up with better lies.
“…taking less money from a company is not taking the “taxpayers money.””
Really? Just who makes up the difference between taxpayer subsidies to the world’s most profitable corporations and the cost of government.
Don’t whine about “high taxes” when you’re volunteering to pick up part of Exxon-Mobil’s tab.
Just a cursory search reveals efforts in hydrogen fuel engines and HOME fueling, natural gas fueled engines and HOME fueling.
This is to say nothing as to industry efforts as to electric vehicles and homespun efforts to use vegetable oil.
What are the cons holding back our country and technology for?
Are they PERSONALLY invested in the status quo? IF so, they must say so.
BJ
How, exactly, are conservatives “holding back” anything?
You are free to explore any alternative you want to try.
Everyone is free to do what ever they want, as far as alternative fuels are concerned.
It is the Democrat Party that wants to stand in the way of some forms of energy.
The Republican Party is not standing in the way of any form of energy.
“Franklin” –
The Republic Party is doling out your tax dollars to the most profitable corporations in the history of capitalism.
Where’s your outrage?
MonkeyHawk,
Please explain how my tax dollars are being given to these corporations?
BlueJay – a caveat about hydrogen: Where do you get it? H2 is not an energy SOURCE – it can only be an energu medium. That said, I suspect that electricity will be the better option.
Ben, I’m not sure how abundant or accessible it is, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_borohydride might be the solution.
Nathaniel, is your only response to this graph,
“Clean Energy” versus “Lower 48 OCS Protected Areas + Arctic Refuge Production”
at,
‘Clean Energy: The Solution to High Gas Prices’
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gaspricesolutions.pdf
“Newly updated NRDC analysis shows that the oil savings from clean energy measures can far outpace the potential oil production of drilling in America’s protected areas.”
————
your twisted, illogical post here?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/09/invent-baby-invent/#comment-429108
Cosmos,
How is a flyer from the NRDC proof of anything?
Here, let me show you what the NRA has to say about guns. Duh.
No, the complete lack of logic on your part is trying to say that because one example of drilling was a failure we shouldn’t bother drilling anymore.
That was the point of my comment.
Nathaniel posted September 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“No, the complete lack of logic on your part is trying to say that because one example of drilling was a failure we shouldn’t bother drilling anymore.
That was the point of my comment.”
——————
Perhaps you’re a little “slow”? I’ll explain the point of my Badami post.
Multi-nic’d made posts showing that Alaska’s oil production is declining.
I thanked multi-nic’d for pointing out that decline.
Multi-nic’d responded with:
“Production has declined, but not potential production.”
I posted about Badami, as an example that “potential production” is not guaranteed to = ACTUAL production.
It’s all here, if you’d read the thread,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/09/open-thread-920/#comment-429087
My argument against more drilling is NOT based solely on Badami.
As I’ve posted many times before, higher energy efficiency is guaranteed to “produce” many times more than what drilling might — and cheaper, sooner, faster, wont run dry, etc.
Rage – I am very familiar with borohydride; I have used it in the past. It is a way to CARRY hydrogen – it is not a resource in and of itself. It does not occur in nature – it has to be manufactured.
Rage – I am very familiar with borohydride; I have used it in the past. It is a way to CARRY hydrogen – it is not a resource in and of itself. It does not occur in nature – it has to be manufactured.
Gotcha. And the natural volatility of hydrogen make pure hydrogen pretty much impossible to obtain.
So under current technology, it’s impossible to extract hydrogen from current natural sources in a way than doesn’t use so much energy and/or create so much waste as to be a net detriment.
Is that about right?
Nathaniel posted September 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Cosmos,
How is a flyer from the NRDC proof of anything?
Here, let me show you what the NRA has to say about guns. Duh.”
————–
NRDC and many others have come to the same conclusions.
The anaylsis is fairly simple.
Calculate the amount of oil that would be saved in the future, with higher mpg vehicles, homes that use less heating oil, etc.
Compare that to the estimated domestic oil production from the EIA.
Higher energy efficiency “produces” much more than more drilling.
It starts almost immediately (not years from now) and it doesn’t run dry. And the investment to increase efficiency is much cheaper than buying the oil.
Another graph, page 123 (PDF pg 147). Note the sharp drop in oil usage 1980 – 85, due the higher efficiency.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Lots of news re hydrogen, etc,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/topics.html
So where are all these high energy savings devices cosmos is talking about?
They don’t exist?
Ten years from now?
Twenty years from now?
This is typically progressive liberal speak. Their solutions are pie-in-the-sky and do not exist.
This is typically progressive liberal speak. Their solutions are pie-in-the-sky and do not exist.
Translation: Liberals live in the real world, which is often complex and uncertain. Bumper-sticker slogans are what modern conservativism is all about.
#
Rage
Posted September 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Permalink
This is typically progressive liberal speak. Their solutions are pie-in-the-sky and do not exist.
Translation: Liberals live in the real world, which is often complex and uncertain. Bumper-sticker slogans are what modern conservativism is all about.
======================================
Translation: Liberals excuse themselves for inventions that do no exist and cannot be made possible in the foreseeable future.
Translation: Liberals excuse themselves for inventions that do no exist and cannot be made possible in the foreseeable future.
Two separate issues. There’s a big difference between what hasn’t been invented, and what cannot be.
The “Drill, baby, drill” crowd doesn’t even want to consider the possibilities.
rage – pretty much yes. IF we have an energy source (e.g. nuclear, wind, solar) we can use hydrogen (perhaps as borohydride or another hydride) as a way to carry that energy. My point (which I have also made to my Sierra Club friends) is that hydrogen is not, in and of itself, an energy source.
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“So where are all these high energy savings devices cosmos is talking about?
They don’t exist?
Ten years from now?
Twenty years from now?
This is typically progressive liberal speak. Their solutions are pie-in-the-sky and do not exist.”
——————
They do exist.
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/biggestsinglestep/technology.asp
Why cosmos, all those technologies state they improve fuel performance by more than 20 percent.
With five of them, one wouldn’t even need the fuel as there would be more fuel savings that there is fuel!!!
:D
Multi-nic’d Regular posted September 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“So where are all these high energy savings devices cosmos is talking about?
They don’t exist?
Ten years from now?
Twenty years from now?
This is typically progressive liberal speak. Their solutions are pie-in-the-sky and do not exist.”
——————
They do exist.
‘Saving Oil’
Option 1. Efficient use of oil
Page 43 (PDF pg 67) of report,
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
My point (which I have also made to my Sierra Club friends) is that hydrogen is not, in and of itself, an energy source.
What about lithium? ;-)
lithium – same problem. We can fine salts of lithium naturally but to reduce it to the metal takes a lot of energy.
There are a lot of hydrogen generating schemes based on metals – Magnesium, zinc, etc. They all have the same problem – it takes energy to get the zero-valent metal. Again, these are fascinating energy MEDIA but not sources.
lithium – same problem.
Oops. Maybe I shoulda said neon (or is that famously inert gas a potential transfer medium too?).
Ya see, I was attempting to make a lame joke. . .the idea being that few elements actually occur in pure (and thus useable) form in nature.
I should known better, particular on a forum where very few are experts and some actually think the Earth is 6000 years old. My bad!