Interesting little video. When you analyze the desires of the environmentalists, it really seems to me like they aren't so much pro-environment as they are anti-business or anti-industrialization. They want to deny us our energy that is necessary to grow our economy and our GDP and raise our standard of living.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 16:34
so how do you explain 8 of the 10 hottest summers were in the last 15 years?
FAIL. Considering all the oil that the USA swallows in order to maintain the current standard of living, the only rational analysis is that that standard must lower in order to achieve a sustainable future.
Of course, you Confags have no idea what I just said. I guess you'll invade another oil-bearing nation to keep up appearances until you get another civil war. Dipshits.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 16:49
>>3
So tell me, since you are so anti-oil, what form of energy are we to use to power our industries and fuel the economy? Nuclear? OH NO, NOT NUCLEAR, THAT'S BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT! Ok, well how about hydro-electric? Oh, well shit, we're already utilizing most of the rivers that we could use to create hydro-electricity, and many parts of the USA don't have access to these resources anyway. Even if they did, there are also NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES TO CONSIDER AS WELL, SO WE CAN'T DO THAT!! LOL! Well, ok, how about solar? Wind? Both expensive, and Ted Kennedy doesn't want to build them because the wind turbines would ruin the view from his porch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pux-suo_MlE
Yay for limousine liberalism and the environmentalists.
Who needs energy? It's just the economy! LoL!
The point being, no matter what kind of energy we are using, the fascist environmentalists are going to raise hell, and many of the energy alternatives are also more expensive than using those that emit greenhouse gasses. We shouldn't have to pull the rug out from under our economy by taking away energy resources just to satisfy these envirofags.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 16:50
"Well, ok, how about solar? Wind? Both expensive, and Ted Kennedy doesn't want to build them because the wind turbines would ruin the view from his porch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pux-suo_MlE"
Don't forget those also pose negative consequences to various forms of wildlife.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 17:32
So how are you guys going to celebrate the fall of civilization? Obviously you don't wanna do anything to stop it, so you might as well throw a party.
>>4
My opinion on alternatives are irrelevant considering the supply of oil for our overconsumption peaked, and there's simply no more cheap oil to rely on. That's the point you Confags continue to hang yourselves on. The Great Oil Binge is OVER. No matter what plans you make or don't make, you have run out of cheap oil to fuel your highly wasteful civilization. No matter what political or economic conversation takes place on some nowhere blog, the price of gasoline, natural gas, and fuel oil will be significantly higher each year that passes.
You Confags like to take the "anti-oil" tack, but we sensible folk are simply ANTI-WASTE. Since your kind of sick economy and civilization runs on the assumption of huge wastes, you just can't comprehend what the fuck we're talking about.
Well, no matter what happens here in this so-called conversation, the price of heat this winter will be high for us all. The price for electricity will be higher next summer, but a large amount. The price of gasoline will continue to climb, and will likely reach $4 next summer. All this REALITY will hit your stupid ass no matter how deeply you subscribe to the propaganda of your partisan position.
Now, if stupid fucks like you would just STFU and gb2college for a real education this time, we could work on getting the Libfags to admit we need nuclear energy! Between the Confags refusing to admit there's a severe energy gap, and the Libfags refusing to exploit energy sources, WE JUST CAN'T ADAPT TO THE COMING AGE OF HYPER-SCARCITY!
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:27
"Well, no matter what happens here in this so-called conversation, the price of heat this winter will be high for us all."
So naturally the solution is to follow the libfaggotry plan of NOT using the oil we have left, and NOT using any other sources of energy that is remotely harmful to the environment?
There is also coal, but the libfags would tear their hair out of we started licensing new coal-fired power plants. We need to stop listening to crazed environmentalists and START doing what is in our national interest - and that CAN'T HAPPEN as long as there is a HUGE body of pissed off environmentalists marching to the polls every election to vote in anti-energy demofags.
When China and all the other countries are willing to keep using cheap energy resources like coal and oil and we aren't, we are going to be in serious fucking trouble. My mind is still open to nuclear if you want to make a case for it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:30
Sure, I'm all for nucular energy. Just don't put the nucular energy next to the people, but, instead, string wires out from it all the way to where it's safe for people to tap from it.
Nuke has at least one thing going for it: at least much of its waste comes in the form of SOLIDS that are HEAVY and thus can be dumped in a deep hole rather than spewed out into the air. Even if coming close to it makes you sick, there's still that fact.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:30
>>7
"My opinion on alternatives are irrelevant considering the supply of oil for our overconsumption peaked, and there's simply no more cheap oil to rely on."
There's tons of coal, but the libfags would never let us get away with using it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:33
...and YEAH I'm fine with robots expanding the Chernobyl reactor.... after all, it's already deadly, and it's already evacuated, so we might as well put new nuclear facilities there.
There is another problem with coal. Yes, it'll last us a few hundred years, but how do we know we won't turn Earth into another Venus with all the carbon dioxide?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:37
>>13 otoh, coal -> dirt -> blocking out the sun -> could put a damper on global warming, look at what happened 1940-1970... otoh, maybe it was nukes that did that
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 18:38
>>13
"There is another problem with coal. Yes, it'll last us a few hundred years, but how do we know we won't turn Earth into another Venus with all the carbon dioxide?"
AHHHHHHHHHH GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING! THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IF WE BURN ANY MORE COAL!
We have about 350 years of coal to exploit in America, assuming (1) we use the current extraction methods, and (2) we use that coal at the same rate. But unfortunately, >>10 is correct. The Libfags would "never let us use it".
Fortunately, the matter is not up to the Libfags, much like this Irrational Love For Oil is also not up to the Confags. Both "fagtions" are going to run out of cheap, then semi-cheap energy sources, and the 'burbs will be in DEEP SHIT. Their political bases will collapse, and then we'll have to exploit our coal reserves, AT LEAST. A new faction will arise: the Foodfags. They will choose to eat over starving, and they will authorize the use of coal energy sources.
>>19
Of course I do. We're running out of the cheap stuff. Solar is hardly making the market penetration it needs to. We're digging like fucking madmen in the Pennsylvania mountains for coal, and with adequate pollution controls, it ought to last us CENTURIES.
Do I support coal? FUCK YEAH! COAL IS KING!
>>20
There's nothing wrong with oil, inherently. It's the perfect fuel for our civilization. We can store and pump it as desired, and it distills and fractionates into many useful products. HOWEVER, we're running out of the cheap stuff, and too many fucking towelheads live above much of the world's reserves. We can't rely on it, and we shouldn't rely on it, unless you want to hand the towelheads the keys to our fucking civilization, Ace!
We should ALSO stop pretending that we don't have our OWN significant oil reserves. So we'll muddy up some patches of land in fucking Alaska. Boo fuckin' HOO! I have no problem saying "exploit" when I talk about a buried resource. Dig it the fuck up and pump it to those who need it. Some of those fucking Canuck elk will have to migrate somewhere else.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-27 23:36
>>21
Oil is a good fuel but it would be nice if we did stuff with oil besides just burn it. Plastic, for example, is far more useful than gasoline. Reducing use of oil for fuel would be good at least in that sense.
Even if we never stop using oil encouraging industry to improve energy efficiency could be good for the economy if done right. Spending less on energy == more profit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 1:23
>>22
Fossil fuels are a cheaper energy source than pretty much all others. Renewable energy has low running costs, but very high start up costs and they don't last forever. As the cost of fossil fuel increases however energy companies will calculate they will make more profits by constructing renewable energy plants and do so.
Name:
LordRiordan2007-10-28 2:25
Fags. Truth is that lib fags keep us from using our own oil resources. We wouldn't be so dependent on foreign oil if it wasn't for LIBFAGS.
What you FUCKING MORONS don't understand, is that no matter what energy source you use, you will have negative consequences.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells sound appealing right? No CO2 emissions... pumps water into the air. It's a shame that you LIBFAGS do not realize that humidity and water have an EPIC effect on the Earth's temperature. MUCH more than CO2, which has a relatively small effect.
Fossile fuels do not effect the temperature that much if at all. The only measurable effect you have is acid rain and pollution.
Electrical cells are not feasable due to the massive storage that would be required. Also, there isn't enough square footage to supply everything with enough power from electric.
Nuclear energy is powerful but obviously LIBFAGS don't like that.
Fusion energy is 50 years off from being possible and 200 years from being applicable.
Wind/Water energy can't produce enough.
Corn fuel increases the price of food and increases the amount of starvation in poverished land. This will cause far many more deaths than global warming. There is also not enough land in the USA to supply all the cars and fuel demand. It's also expensive.
ANYONE HAVE SOLUTIONS? Fossile fuel is the best bet.
Besides... why would global warming be bad? You get rid of the coast which is full of faggots, more food, and more rain. Stfu.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 4:49
I can't wait for this bullshit to blow over. 20 years from now some group of stupid faggots are going to be crying out for the end of the world as a new ice age approaches. "This is the second coldest winter in 3 years! 10 minutes from now New York will be covered in a glacier! If we don't stop people from using their air conditioners all life on earth will be lost in a sea of ice by 2080!"
you're all a bunch of faggots if you think humans can make any significant changes in the climate.
>>25
It's not like the ocean levels are rising from the Earth getting colder. It's not like glaciers are retreating from the Earth getting colder. You anti-sane folks are a fucking howl. You know disaster is coming yet since the Liberals have adopted that truth, you can't accept it be association. Global Climate Change is here, and its little brother (Global Warming) is hardly the main threat.
Once major pieces of the Greenland ice cap melt and slide into the Atlantic, all the coastal maps of the world will have to be redrawn, and a good 10% of Humanity MUST MOVE inland away from the rising ocean. This is the truth that you anti-sane people can't accept.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-28 13:12
i down voted every comment on that youtube video
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-29 20:50
>>24
"Fags. Truth is that lib fags keep us from using our own oil resources. We wouldn't be so dependent on foreign oil if it wasn't for LIBFAGS.
Nuclear energy is powerful but obviously LIBFAGS don't like that."
So in summary, we should stop listening to the libfags, start using our own oil reserves here in the USA such as ANWAR, and use more coal... dig for coal here in the USA, and build more nuclear power plants. This should create high-paying jobs here in the USA and contribute to reducing our trade deficit too. Too bad the piss pants envirofags will bitch about it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-29 20:52
"Besides... why would global warming be bad? You get rid of the coast which is full of faggots, more food, and more rain. Stfu."
LOL! Too true! New York and California are full of fascist liberal faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-29 20:53
Oh and also, coal is fucking CHEAP isn't it? WE NEED FUCKING COAL!
LOL! Too true! Texas and Georgia are full of fascist conservative faggots.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-29 22:31
>>26
NEWS FLASH: CLIMATE CHANGE OCCURS IN CYCLES.
It's not like the Earth is only getting warmer all the time. It gets COLD tooooo.
Sure, right now things are getting warm, but that doesn't mean that in another 20 years conditions won't change to produce the opposite effect.
And while the media has railroaded this idea of catastrophic global warming down your throat it certainly doesn't mean that they're right. But since you listen to those liberal faggots who do nothing but cry about it all day you have to come up with childish terms like "anti-sane".
But hey, I'm sure I won't change your mind. But sometime from now I'll have the pleasure of having a good laugh when I remember all you alarmists and how you suddenly dropped the issue to rally against some other force humans have no control over.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 1:18
Why is it that fear mongering is acceptable in this case although it's generally frowed upon?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 2:23
>>32
Texas > New York, ez. Also, how can you be a fascist conservative? One of the fundamental tenets of fascism is stringent socioeconomic controls - something American conservatives have a history of opposing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 3:42
What... this is news to you fucking etards? Green Peace went red like 10 years ago. Good for them, socialism is better then this piece of shit system.
>>37
Your data stems from flawed simulations thus it's worthless data and the title 'scientist' doesn't include neutrality and the correctness of the research. It just describes a person who acquired sufficient knowledge to do research.
You say the majority is right? Well, here's a list of 19000 scientists who disagree with the 1600 you mentioned: http://www.oism.org/pproject/