Go ahead. I'll be waiting. And when you cannot find where I've given Obama credit for anything, because I haven't, I'll expect your apology for constantly misunderstanding what I have been saying over and over and over and over again.
Go look. And then apologize.
That's great! I certainly don't want you to think that I am against alternative energy, but rather I am for the smart development of such. Now, can you tell me with all of this 'doubling of this', and 'quadrupling of that', how much do these alternatives account for in total energy consumption today?From 2008 to 2012, wind energy almost doubled. Solar energy increased four times what it was in 2008 by 2012. I do not consider those things failures.
Ok so where did I call him a Muslim, or Kenyan, or anything like that? What you did was a rude, dishonest tactic, and I expect you to be a man and apologize for what you did there by lying about my words.That's your strawman....Show me where I said anything like this
Quote Originally Posted by You
No, he hasn't, but that is not for lack of trying
Honestly? very few people on here do I consider them by who they actually are....Most, I see as the generic antagonistic progressive. They (you) all sound the same, write the same, and parrot the same bull **** they hear from each other like we were standing in some kind of lemming echo chamber.I'm the person you chose to enter a debate with. Obviously my opinion means something to you.
Man, I wish I were still in school...Those days are long gone friend.If I'm an "aging" liberal, then I have to wonder what you're doing on a debate forum during a school day.
How did I attack you? By disagree with your postings?Says the person who attacked me because you didn't agree with my POV.
It's really simple. You made false statements. I provided factual statements which have been researched and supported and proved your position wrong. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
Irrelevant. You said:That's great! I certainly don't want you to think that I am against alternative energy, but rather I am for the smart development of such. Now, can you tell me with all of this 'doubling of this', and 'quadrupling of that', how much do these alternatives account for in total energy consumption today?
Fair enough, YOU didn't, at least not in this thread (and I have no idea if you ever have or not). But my point remains the same, of you and people like you.Ok so where did I call him a Muslim, or Kenyan, or anything like that?
I love the rationale of the anti-Obama crowd. When something bad happens, it's because Obama wields an enormous amount of power in turning this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims. When something good happens, it happens completely despite Obama's attempt to turn this country into a failed socialist nation of Muslims.No, what's rude and dishonest is the fact you're ignoring the point to focus on a rather irrelevant portion of what I said. You have spent this thread making false statements to justify your dislike of Obama, and despite the fact I've shown you multiple times where your multiple statements have been false, you continue to make false statements. And you have the audacity to act offended because I lumped you in with a group of people just like you, who DO use the Muslim tag? Oh, and I didn't say you called him a Kenyan...you added that yourself....and you're calling me dishonest.What you did was a rude, dishonest tactic
I'll be happy to apologize for not distinguishing the fact you have not said anything about a Muslim, even though you act the exact same way as so many who do use Muslim to criticize the President, the moment you apologize for the fact you have continuously made provably false statements.and I expect you to be a man and apologize for what you did there by lying about my words.
You apologize first for making provably false statements (since you made your false statements first) and I'll apologize for not specifically setting you apart. Your move.
Which is absurd, because I don't parrot anyone, I simply use facts, as I've done multiple times in this thread. What does it say about a person when they ignore which you admit is the constant posting of facts and STILL cling to their false beliefs?Honestly? very few people on here do I consider them by who they actually are....Most, I see as the generic antagonistic progressive. They (you) all sound the same, write the same, and parrot the same bull **** they hear from each other like we were standing in some kind of lemming echo chamber.
I can only assume you are in school, if you consider me aging. Should we add this to the list of things for which you owe me an apology?Man, I wish I were still in school...Those days are long gone friend.
Have you not read this last post of yours? If you consider what I've done to you (correcting you) to be attacking, then surely calling me a "generic antagonistic progressive" who "sound(s) the same, write(s) the same and parrot the same bull**** they hear" is an attack.How did I attack you? By disagree with your postings?
"“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama
What is the total percentage of 'green energy' tecnology in use today, and how much energy does it produce for the nation?
See, you won't answer that, and actively try and hide the fact that it is in the single digits percentage wise, with stats of how much more we are doing today, v. a decade ago, which tells nothing. All of the other crap is just that, crap, and arrogant blather out of you, so either answer the direct question, or do us all a favor, and sit back a while and learn something....Thanks
'Peak oil'......hahhahahahaha! Good grief....wake up....
"Peak Oil is the theoretical idea that the world will eventually reach a maximum rate of oil production, which will be followed by a terminal decline.
No doubt, that’s a scary theory should it come to pass. However, as Yogi Berra famously, said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
And go figure. We have a career theorist (i.e. – a research geologist) to blame for Peak Oil. So we shouldn’t be surprised if reality doesn’t match his theory.
His name is Marion King Hubbert. In the mid 1950s, he developed a quantitative technique that could be used to predict the remaining supplies of any finite resource – and the time of ultimate depletion. And Hubbert used it to predict that oil production would peak by the early 1970s.
Nice try, Nostradamus.
After peaking briefly around 60 million barrels per day in the mid-1970s, global oil production resumed its upward march. And now it’s firmly above 90 million barrels per day, according to the latest data from Energy Intelligence Group.
Here are the two major reasons Hubbert’s Peak Oil theory breaks apart when put into practice…
First off, a peak in production doesn’t mean a peak in availability. In other words, even if production spikes and tapers off, it’s not an indication that oil’s running out.
Truth is, we’re nowhere close to running out of oil.
As oil giant, BP plc (NYSE: BP) said in its annual Statistical Energy Review, “The world is not structurally short of hydrocarbon resources – as our data on proved reserves confirms year after year.”
Second, Hubbert’s theory ignores “unconventional” fossil fuel sources like tar sands, heavy oils and shale oil. They weren’t easily accessible back in his day, hence they couldn’t be considered affordable and/or available. Fair enough.
Fast-forward to today, though, and Peak Oil adherents still hold onto Hubbert’s idea. They ignore, or grossly discount, the impact of unconventional sources on availability.
Yet five decades’ worth of technological advancement has made many of these sources very accessible – and much more affordable. And vast amounts of oil have been discovered in these unconventional sources.
The end result? As my colleague, Matthew Weinschenk, said back in June, “New developments have rendered Hubbert’s curve ineffective, or at least delayed it by decades.”
I’ll go a step further and declare it useless.
So what about America’s prospects for energy independence?
Exhibit A: Fossil fuel production is in a confirmed uptrend, increasing about 12% since 2005.
Exhibit B: We’re now producing enough energy to meet almost 84% of our energy consumption. Again, the trend is moving in a decidedly positive direction.
Bottom line: Don’t believe the Chicken Littles of the world when they go around screaming, “We’re running out of oil! We’re running out of oil! We’re running out of oil!”
Energy Independence and the Myth of Peak OilWall Street Daily
Do you believe in little green men too?