Sma' Talk Wi' T

Current world events, politics, news, history, culture, trivia, religion, and the quirky

Specious Arguments Aren’t Slick

leave a comment »

I have to be honest and tell you that my experiences with environmentalists and liberals is always disappointing. There has never been a good response or debate with them.

I’ve done my research. Liberals can’t read. Their intolerance keeps them from doing the same research. In arguing with a liberal environmentalist today, I sent studies, links, reports, that should have taken at least two days to research and absorb. Heck, let’s say one day! Let’s really cut them some slack and say it would take a few hours to read. What happened? The response today was that this person came back less than a hour after I sent it with rhetoric and misperceptions of what I wrote. There wasn’t even the courtesy of reciprocated reading of my rebuttals with scientific links and responding to my reports. Just more specious avoidance.

Environmentalism is the foundation of the greatest hoax of the last 100 years. Global warming, climate change, all the environmentalism euphemisms, is about progressives redistributing the wealth of America. If liberals want to dialogue about climate change, let’s dialogue! But they don’t want to debate. They want Congress to pass laws based on junk science. We don’t know if controlling greenhouse emissions is possible. We need to go to nuclear power, drill for oil here in the US, and build our own refineries.

Let me clarify even further: the whole jumping on the bandwagon to change corporations aka “cap and trade” is a hoax. Let’s talk about the Europe’s failure to control greenhouse emissions. Oh, then again… let’s don’t. Kyoto Treaty is a failure.

Liberals don’t address scientific studies, documented UN ICPP hoax reports and the tens of thousands of environmental scientists and many more environmental experts that dispute the current trend of climate change hysteria. This is about government controlling our lives. Period.

France and Italy have nuclear energy. Are they inferring that it’s not possible for America to do the same? In the United States we are not being allowed to build refineries or drill more for oil. We could stop importing from the Middle East and use our own resources.

What resources here in the United States?

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest “continuous” oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. And that’s just in North Dakota and Montana! One government energy website explains what this means.

A “continuous” oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest “continuous” oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

This doesn’t include Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Washington’s unexplored areas, and Mexico’s, Canada’s or the Artic regions.

How much oil does Iraq have?

When it comes to assessing Iraq’s undiscovered reserves, the differences between the DOE and the USGS becomes even starker. According to the USGS—which is hardly a Chicken Little when it comes to reserve predictions—there is a 95 percent probability that Iraq has at least 14 bbl, a 50 percent probability that it has at least 45 bbl, but only a 5 percent probability that it has 84 bbl of undiscovered reserves. This means that the probability that Iraq has 200 bbl or 300 bbl, as so many of the reports have suggested, is, according to USGS calculations, close to nil.

The discrepancies between the United States’ two chief government agencies dealing with energy assessments are so sharp that they present entirely contradictory images of Iraq’s oil potential. If the DOE data is right, then Iraq has the world’s second largest proven reserves. On the other hand, if the USGS figures are right (and they are also endorsed by the 2002 Energy Outlook of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, whose projections are recognized as authoritative throughout the energy world), then Russia would be second, with roughly twice the reserves of Iraq.

We need to address the use of Russia and China’s use of natural resources as well. The solution is not an impotent Cap and Trade which only penalizes America’s big business not solve the issue.

The sources below are not unbiased (not funded by anyone below) scientific source to prove responsibility for climate change theses.

  • Worldwide Institute
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund
  • Winthrop Rockefeller Trust
  • Ford Foundation
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Friends of the Earth
  • Natural Resources Defense Council
  • MacArthur Foundation
  • Center for International Environmental Law
  • Union of Concerned Scientists
  • Mott Foundation
  • Earth Action Network
  • Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
  • Anything or anyone Al Gore is associated with…

Let’s study it more. No need to pass any laws.

Reading suggestions:

Organize for Victory!

Cool It! The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide To Global Warming

Without honest dialogue and mutual respect, there will never be a resolution to the climate change issue. Republicans need to reject every bill that handicaps capitalism and American businesses. It will backfire on agendists. What a shame. I like a good debate.


Written by smalltalkwitht

June 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: