Ecofascist Disasters

[Andy]

If cars get better mileage they need less gas. Gas is at the gas station. Pretty easy to see the effect here if you don't have to be at the station as often.

And who knows OPEC might do that again. Better to prepare for the worst and be happy if the worst doesn't happen. Then to hope for the best and be unprepared if the best doesn't happen... Abraham Lincoln

I agree. The best way to be prepared is to get our own oil so we don't need theirs. I had assumed you meant long lines due to gas shortages. Otherwise, it's more a matter of having enough gas stations in the area, and enough pumps at the stations. I have no problem finding an open pump at any station I go to in my area.

While it's true there are taxes on gas (most of which go into the fund to maintain our roads & bridges) and we do restrict some drilling operations in pristine wildlife areas there's a fact here that can't be avoided. Oil will not last forever. I believe the estimate is at the current curve of consumption something like 60 years... say 80 or 100 years. That's not that long... seriously.

In the scientific community, the oil issue is still open to debate. The only place where it is closed to debate, and conventional wisdom is assumed absolute truth, is in politics. This is because if oil is in fact renewable, it would take away from socialists being able to gain more control through the government.

But either way, the facts are this. If you complain about oil prices... and it's amazing how many do, then you must accept responsibility for the action you have taken in causing high prices. The fact that can't be avoided is... foolish people, electing dipwad politicians, have passed legislation, taxes, fees, and regulations, that have caused boosted cost of gas, and forced more imported oil.

We'll try basic math:

Two people are stranded alone on 2 different desert islands.

Person #1 has learned how to survive on 8 pounds of food per month.

Person #2 hasn't learned how to survive on 8 pounds of food and needs a minimum of 15 pounds of food per month to survive.

There's often no more than 8 pounds of food available on each island.

Which person suffers most and probably dies off first?

Both die. What difference does it make? Person 1 is going to suffer longer for what again? Oh right, nothing. He's going to die too.

Here is how I look at it. First, if I am right, oil is created naturally in our environment, and it will not run out. If so, then we are shooting our foot off for no reason whatsoever.

Second, if I am wrong and is oil going to run out, then slowly, as supply decreases, the price increase naturally without any government intervention. As prices rise, demand and research for alternatives will increase naturally without government intervention. As oil increases in price, alternatives will become competitive naturally without government intervention.

So in either case, we should not be doing what we are, because under your system, we shoot our foot off, force ourselves to import tons of oil needlessly, castrate our domestic economy in the face of growing global competition that doesn't castrate themselves.

That's fine for band-aid thinking. The truth is though if we agreed to start drilling in Alaska say... the estimate is 8 to 10 years before any of that oil becomes gasoline. And as that's put into use the older wells in other location continue to dry up. I'm not against seriously looking into some additional drilling sites. There are some places where it's just not a reasonable trade off but maybe we open up some new sites somewhere. Still doesn't solve anything.

Yeah if CAFE standards were raised today, it takes roughly 4-6 years for a car to go from starting concept drawings to showroom floor. So how about we allow them to start on the drilling process now. It was idiots saying the same thing 10 years ago, the led to where we are now.

That's as dumb as a medical student saying 'it'll take 10 years to get through school, why bother?'. Give me a break. If you could offset 20% of imported oil today, by going back in time 10 years and smacking those idiots who prevented drilling... would you do it? Absolutely. Well ten years from now, I don't want some complete ***** still on this forum saying "if we drill in alaska it won't help for another 10 years!". Plain stupid.

 

[top gun]

Andy;37241]I agree. The best way to be prepared is to get our own oil so we don't need theirs. I had assumed you meant long lines due to gas shortages. Otherwise, it's more a matter of having enough gas stations in the area, and enough pumps at the stations. I have no problem finding an open pump at any station I go to in my area.

Not sure we agree but it's a nice thought. The idea that all problems with oil vanish if we just drill anywhere & everywhere that there is any oil at all... as long as it's in the US is extremely short sighted. You can't believe there is an endless supply of oil... you just can't. That's simply a reaction to just wanting prices to come down and seeing a short term influx as putting a guaranteed reality off.

I lived through the 70's. Stations rationed and shut down. I can assure you everyone back then wished their Olds Rocket 425 V8 engines got much better gas mileage.

Fail to plan... plan to fail.

In the scientific community, the oil issue is still open to debate. The only place where it is closed to debate, and conventional wisdom is assumed absolute truth, is in politics. This is because if oil is in fact renewable, it would take away from socialists being able to gain more control through the government.

I'm always amused about this take on reality. You know... when 98% of the scientific community and common sense dictates oil is not endless & you can only pump so much... but the "no conservation" crowd screams about exactly what year we'll completely be screwed hoping to drop the gas price $.25 a gallon.

Both die. What difference does it make? Person 1 is going to suffer longer for what again? Oh right, nothing. He's going to die too.

I am so glad you answered that way. It illustrates the problem with your thought process perfectly and it relates to the oil issue.

You say that person #1 who can live on less food suffers more because he can live on less food and heck he die too. So in your evaluation person #2 that can't live on the lower food and he are the same.

Just like the "no conservation" attitude on oil argument nothing could be further from the truth. Person #2 suffers most because he's STARVING. He gets sick and DIES first. Person # 2 (the conservationist in this scenario) gets the adequate nutrition he needs to survive and lives to possibly be rescued. With #2 there's hope. With #1 it's much quicker doom.

Here is how I look at it. First, if I am right, oil is created naturally in our environment, and it will not run out. If so, then we are shooting our foot off for no reason whatsoever.

OMG!!!!!!!!... you're serious. The fact that it is scientifically known that the time it takes oil to be created and what it comes from is in no possible way in line with your thought process and rationalization is just fine with you. I'm not being mean here but the saying applies... Ignorance is bliss.

Yeah if CAFE standards were raised today, it takes roughly 4-6 years for a car to go from starting concept drawings to showroom floor. So how about we allow them to start on the drilling process now. It was idiots saying the same thing 10 years ago, the led to where we are now.

Many cars that reach the new proposed CAFE Standard are on our dealer lots today as we speak. There are hundreds of other models all over the world (even some made by US car makers) available to be brought in for sale here. Car makers can bridge the gap while in the slightly longer term completely redesigned new cars are brought on line.

Since it's your "endless supply" theory that oil breeds (just kidding) and is replacing itself at a rate that we won't in the next 60 -100 years run out of it... I guess in your mind the solution is always just more drilling.

I can only state the facts as the scientific community does. Oil is not in endless supply. Technology virtually is.

That's as dumb as a medical student saying 'it'll take 10 years to get through school, why bother?'. Give me a break. If you could offset 20% of imported oil today, by going back in time 10 years and smacking those idiots who prevented drilling... would you do it? Absolutely. Well ten years from now, I don't want some complete ***** still on this forum saying "if we drill in alaska it won't help for another 10 years!". Plain stupid.

You are the king of bad analogies . The medical student is gaining knowledge that lasts & can be used forever. Oil is not like knowledge in anyway.

 

[top gun]

Sorry everybody... I had #1 & #2 switched around after the first #2 and didn't catch it in time to edit. I had them reversed by number... but the story itself was right (the conservationist etc.)... numbers now match up with wording.

Just like the "no conservation" attitude on oil argument nothing could be further from the truth. Person #2 suffers most because he's STARVING. He gets sick and DIES first. Person #1 (the conservationist in this scenario) gets the adequate nutrition he needs to survive and lives to possibly be rescued. With #1 there's hope. With person #2 it's much quicker doom.

 

[Libsmasher]

Not sure we agree but it's a nice thought. The idea that all problems with oil vanish if we just drill anywhere & everywhere that there is any oil at all... as long as it's in the US is extremely short sighted.

This is a standard lib switch-the-point maneuver of ecofascists - nobody has ever claimed that drilling all the US oil reserves would make "all problems with oil vanish". The point is that a marginal increase in supplies of oil in a situation like now, when oil prices are being driven up by speculators, would have a significant price-lowering effect.

 

[top gun]

This is a standard lib switch-the-point maneuver of ecofascists - nobody has ever claimed that drilling all the US oil reserves would make "all problems with oil vanish". The point is that a marginal increase in supplies of oil in a situation like now, when oil prices are being driven up by speculators, would have a significant price-lowering effect.

Nothing "lib switch-the-point" to it. I totally agree that if we had more US oil the price of gas would go down slightly.

The fact is however that all oil no matter where it comes from is not unlimited. It's a pay me now - or pay me later scenario.

The fact that there may in certain places be environmental issues plus the fact that in very remote and frigged areas it would cost mutibillions of dollars and still take an estimated 10 years to produce any gasoline for the market... is a relevant factor in the equation.

And that's without even discussing the fact that cutting pollution is done by going in the opposite (conservational & high tech vehicle improvement) direction.

I'll throw those who think more US drilling is the solution an olive branch. Here goes.

I'm a big car guy myself. Really only like for my own personal vehicle SUV's and large luxury cars (but traded in my SUV for a Lexus because it gets 20 city/30 highway). If new CAFE standards dropped the size of cars down be sure I'd have the largest one available.

Love the Prius technology but wouldn't own one because... to me they're ugly.

All this said I remember what my grandfather used to talk about. He owned a small farm and at the same time worked at a Chevrolet dealership for a short time and then a Dodge dealership for a long time as a salesman. He would often talk about the things people said about the automobile as he was growing up.

Don't trust the horseless carriage thing... too undependable.

Those rattle traps cost a fortune. They'll never replace a good horse.

Gasoline is like a bomb. I'm not sittin' on top of that.

Why would anybody drive all the way 'cross town to get petrol when they have a horse in the barn?

It's change that is scary. That's natural but it also holds us back and is not progressive or productive. Eventually technical innovation wins out over status quo.

That's all that's happening with the beginning of a switch away from low gas mileage internal combustion engines. It's going to happen. It's inevitable. Yelling at a cloud doesn't stop a thing.

Better to accept & work with small changes in a certain direction than have it all drop in at once where only the rich drive cars and everyone else rides a Moped.

 

[Libsmasher]

[COLOR]Nothing "lib switch-the-point" to it. I totally agree that if we had more US oil the price of gas would go down slightly.

Not "slightly".

The fact is however that all oil no matter where it comes from is not unlimited.

That's supposed be some kind of big point? EVERYTHING is not unlimited.

The fact that there may in certain places be environmental issues plus the fact that in very remote and frigged areas it would cost mutibillions of dollars and still take an estimated 10 years to produce any gasoline for the market... is a relevant factor in the equation.

And what will we be paying ten years from now to the arabs? $50/gallon? The main "environmental issue" that oil comapnies have to deal with is ecofascists, who hold that the environment is more important than anything, more important than economic calamity, certainly more important than human beings. Their ideal is a pollution free america where there are no cars, no factories, no "urban spawl", because everyone has starved to death.

It's change that is scary. That's natural but it also holds us back and is not progressive or productive. Eventually technical innovation wins out over status quo.

That's all that's happening with the beginning of a switch away from low gas mileage internal combustion engines. It's going to happen. It's inevitable. Yelling at a cloud doesn't stop a thing.

Better to accept & work with small changes in a certain direction than have it all drop in at once where only the rich drive cars and everyone else rides a Moped. [/COLOR]

It's ecofascist change that is scary. It is arrogant, uninformed ecofascists who want to seize power and then give full play to their brainstorms and wild ideas about energy, subisidized by taxpayers, the same people who will suffer fallout when the damage is done. But being proven wrong never stops ecofascists - did hundreds of houses burn down in the california fires because they want to keep forests "pristine"? Ahhh, too bad. Did their ethanol fetish skyrocket food prices for hundreds of millions of people? Ooops, blew that - lets' zip on to the next thing that comes from their fevered whirling brains. You "change" fanatics should grasp at least ONE small thing from history - change has always happened, and not necessarily for the good - very frequently human-caused change has been disastrous.

 

[Andy]

Not sure we agree but it's a nice thought. The idea that all problems with oil vanish if we just drill anywhere & everywhere that there is any oil at all... as long as it's in the US is extremely short sighted. You can't believe there is an endless supply of oil... you just can't. That's simply a reaction to just wanting prices to come down and seeing a short term influx as putting a guaranteed reality off.

No the problem is, believing that conservation is going to prevent us from running out if you believe running out is inevitable.

I lived through the 70's. Stations rationed and shut down. I can assure you everyone back then wished their Olds Rocket 425 V8 engines got much better gas mileage.

Nothing wrong with that. They should have bought some of the many high mileage cars available at that time.

I'm always amused about this take on reality. You know... when 98% of the scientific community and common sense dictates oil is not endless & you can only pump so much... but the "no conservation" crowd screams about exactly what year we'll completely be screwed hoping to drop the gas price $.25 a gallon.

Truth isn't determined by percentage of people believing it. Conventional wisdom is normally wrong. Prove 98% of scientists believe that? As always, I expect you to be completely closed minded to this since you need it to support your socialist agenda.

I am so glad you answered that way. It illustrates the problem with your thought process perfectly and it relates to the oil issue.

You say that person #1 who can live on less food suffers more because he can live on less food and heck he die too. So in your evaluation person #2 that can't live on the lower food and he are the same.

Just like the "no conservation" attitude on oil argument nothing could be further from the truth. Person #2 suffers most because he's STARVING. He gets sick and DIES first. Person # 2 (the conservationist in this scenario) gets the adequate nutrition he needs to survive and lives to possibly be rescued. With #2 there's hope. With #1 it's much quicker doom.

Living on less means being hungry constantly, not eating as much as you would normally because you know you have a limited supply. This would be wise if it were possible a ship would come by and rescue you.

However since you believe that once oil is used, it's gone, and no rescue from that is possible... Then one person is dragging out his suffering over a long time frame without any hope rescue, while the other enjoys life for a long as he can before running out.

OMG!!!!!!!!... you're serious. The fact that it is scientifically known that the time it takes oil to be created and what it comes from is in no possible way in line with your thought process and rationalization is just fine with you. I'm not being mean here but the saying applies... Ignorance is bliss.

As I suspected from your first post in this thread, you know nothing of science, but what your told, or can 'cut and paste' from a web site.

Many cars that reach the new proposed CAFE Standard are on our dealer lots today as we speak. There are hundreds of other models all over the world (even some made by US car makers) available to be brought in for sale here. Car makers can bridge the gap while in the slightly longer term completely redesigned new cars are brought on line.

If cars already reach the new CAFE, then your brilliant CAFE plan doesn't help anything does it?

There are hundreds of models all over the world that would not sell at all here.

The ones that would, wouldn't pass US regulations. VW has had their TDI Diesel for years and years. They can't just ship it here because it doesn't pass US standards and regulations. Ford has tiny Diesel cars it's been selling for years in other countries. Why not here? Because US regulations prevent it. So no, they can't just bring the cars here and sell them. Porsche, BMW, Nissan, Toyota... all of them have cars that can not be sold in the US.

Since it's your "endless supply" theory that oil breeds (just kidding) and is replacing itself at a rate that we won't in the next 60 -100 years run out of it... I guess in your mind the solution is always just more drilling.

No. Not surprisingly you have no intellect in this. The answer, as stated before is... the free market. Unrestrained free market will provide alternate sources of energy as they are needed without government intervention.

As oil supplies dry up, or as supplies reach their limit of production from a naturally occurring process... the price will increase naturally, and R&D into alternative fuels will occur naturally, and fuel sources will compete under supply and demand naturally.

The problem is un-American socialists, elected by uneducated fools, inflicting high prices on us needlessly, hindering our economy pointlessly, by virtue of the governments unconstitutional intrusion into the market.

I can only state the facts as the scientific community does. Oil is not in endless supply. Technology virtually is.

You need some education.

You are the king of bad analogies . The medical student is gaining knowledge that lasts & can be used forever. Oil is not like knowledge in anyway.

The analogy was spot on. A student could look at the time and effort to get his education and say, I won't benefit from it for 10 years, why bother.

We could look, as some idiots here do, at drilling in ANWR and claim we won't benefit from it for 10 years, so why bother.

Both theories are plain stupid. Your point, wasn't being addressed, and is irrelevant to mine. Figure it out.

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;37298]Not "slightly".

It would be slightly. By the time it came on line with the multi-billions the oil companies through into it and looking for a return after up to 10 years of investment and the fact that 10 more years of foreign oil is now off the table and gone forever... it would end up being "slightly".

That's supposed be some kind of big point? EVERYTHING is not unlimited.

Correct! So if we want it to last so we can gradually slide into new technology without a major shortage or crisis... we'd better conserve a little.

And what will we be paying ten years from now to the arabs? $50/gallon? The main "environmental issue" that oil comapnies have to deal with is ecofascists, who hold that the environment is more important than anything, more important than economic calamity, certainly more important than human beings. Their ideal is a pollution free america where there are no cars, no factories, no "urban spawl", because everyone has starved to death.

I just think the whole "ecofasict" thing is way over the top. I'm no tree hugger. I'm a classic car and Harley guy. I think that pulling oil from other parts of America should be done if INDEPENDENT EXPERTS, not the tree huggers, not the oil companies can attest that it can be done without huge environmental impact. I'm sorry but I don't see anything ecofascit about that. I'm not for poopin' in my own back yard and understand others have back yards too. That's where I'm at.

 

[top gun]

Andy;37337]No the problem is, believing that conservation is going to prevent us from running out if you believe running out is inevitable.

The goal is to not run out (and running out doesn't mean every last drop... running out means shortages, rationing. things like that) before we have other good energy sources for transportation. Conservation alone without investment in new technology is as pointless as well and I've said that.

Nothing wrong with that. They should have bought some of the many high mileage cars available at that time.

That was an interesting time. A time when the MG Midget and Fiat Spider were bragged about like they were a 69 Z28 Camaro.

Truth isn't determined by percentage of people believing it. Conventional wisdom is normally wrong. Prove 98% of scientists believe that? As always, I expect you to be completely closed minded to this since you need it to support your socialist agenda.

When you're sick you don't go to a hospital and say... I don't care what every doctor in this place says I don't have diabetes. These are the experts stating their scientific conclusions in their field of expertise. I could see it if the Sierra Club or Green Peace was the ones out there saying it... but the independent experts I think have to have some clout here. Come on ANDY.

Living on less means being hungry constantly, not eating as much as you would normally because you know you have a limited supply. This would be wise if it were possible a ship would come by and rescue you.

However since you believe that once oil is used, it's gone, and no rescue from that is possible... Then one person is dragging out his suffering over a long time frame without any hope rescue, while the other enjoys life for a long as he can before running out.

The point is that guy #1 has learned to get by with less comfortably. Guy #2 is always hungry suffering and dies. If there's a rescue ship that comes (new technology) guy #1 will still be around to take advantage of it. #2 is already dead.

As I suspected from your first post in this thread, you know nothing of science, but what your told, or can 'cut and paste' from a web site.

Well whatever? I'm at least looking things up, not just guessing my way through on gut feelings and misguided hate.

If cars already reach the new CAFE, then your brilliant CAFE plan doesn't help anything does it?

It's not my plan I just understand the plan. Most cars in America don't meet the new standard and it takes a few years to see an impact as you ween more & more older gas guzzlers off the road as new more fuel efficient cars are sold. It's a process. I'm not for making anyone take there older car off the road. If they want to keep repairing an older ride I say let them do it 'till they fall through the floor boards.

But as someone who has restored cars it's my observation that 95% of people would move to the newer cars and not rebuild.

There are hundreds of models all over the world that would not sell at all here.

But there are many that will. Pair them up with the ones we already have and get to work on new models. We just got back from Mexico on vacation last month. They have good looking Nissan cars and other brands (even American) about the size of the Jetta that we don't have up here. Probably because they compete with the Cobalt & Focus line. But there are good vehicles all around the world up to the size of a mid size sedan (think Honda Accord size) that can hit the 35 highway mark. And that doesn't even include the hybrids.

The ones that would, wouldn't pass US regulations. VW has had their TDI Diesel for years and years. They can't just ship it here because it doesn't pass US standards and regulations. Ford has tiny Diesel cars it's been selling for years in other countries. Why not here? Because US regulations prevent it. So no, they can't just bring the cars here and sell them. Porsche, BMW, Nissan, Toyota... all of them have cars that can not be sold in the US.

I don't know where you live and we've already been all over the fact that the 08 Jetta Diesel is slated for all states. But I'm not even talking Diesel. I don't disagree that some foreign cars wouldn't pass safety standards. But absolutely some do and are being kept out not because of standards but because it's cross competition. All we need is a decent selection while we retool. It's not like Gm & Ford are going away and not going to sell cars anymore.

No. Not surprisingly you have no intellect in this. The answer, as stated before is... the free market. Unrestrained free market will provide alternate sources of energy as they are needed without government intervention.

Well bud the fact is we're not gettin' it done and gas is $4 bucks a gallon.

As oil supplies dry up, or as supplies reach their limit of production from a naturally occurring process... the price will increase naturally, and R&D into alternative fuels will occur naturally, and fuel sources will compete under supply and demand naturally.

The problem is un-American socialists, elected by uneducated fools, inflicting high prices on us needlessly, hindering our economy pointlessly, by virtue of the governments unconstitutional intrusion into the market.

There's nothing natural about it. Huge companies are well known for dragging their feet. They even look at safety issues that have the potential to kill people in an insurance risk/benefit light. They know people need transportation. If Company A can cheaply develop a car that gets 2 MPG better than their competitor that's what they'll do. They build cars with what's called "planned obsolescence". Which means they want the car to not be as good as the next one so you'll buy a new one. If they see huge costly jumps in tech as cutting into the bottom line because of end costs v. retail market they hold back. The CAFE Standard being raised pushes the issue in a timely manor.

You need some education.

The Ohio State University... Business 1979. You?

The analogy was spot on. A student could look at the time and effort to get his education and say, I won't benefit from it for 10 years, why bother.

And you mentioned education above??? Education is not a commodity. But the analogy would go like this. A student is looking at different fields of study. The degree he was planning on working toward shows signs of future down sizing and job cuts so he picks the other field with greater growth potential (that would be the hybrid guy ).

We could look, as some idiots here do, at drilling in ANWR and claim we won't benefit from it for 10 years, so why bother.

I've never researched it. I'd be fine with whatever the preponderance of INDEPENDENT professionals experts in their field said.

 

[Andy]

The goal is to not run out (and running out doesn't mean every last drop... running out means shortages, rationing. things like that) before we have other good energy sources for transportation. Conservation alone without investment in new technology is as pointless as well and I've said that.

You flip flop more than Hillary. You wag back and forth more than Bill between two bimbos.

If oil is finite, then we WILL run out. It doesn't matter how much you 'conserve', the rest of the planet will not. You think China is going to slow their use of oil? Not a chance. You think India is? No way. So we can castrate our economy all we want, and the rest of the planet will be more than happy to use up all the oil we do not. So if you are right, we will run out, meanwhile, all our jobs go over seas. Another brilliant strategy.

That was an interesting time. A time when the MG Midget and Fiat Spider were bragged about like they were a 69 Z28 Camaro.

Time has a way of removing stupidity. It's funny, I have a huge massive book about the history of America's greatest cars. Each chapter is 10 years of cars. 1920-1929 1930-1939 and so on. By 1930s, it details about 50 some cars a year until 1960s where it tops out at 89 cars considered the greatest cars during that time. However in the 70s, only 38 cars. In the 80s, only 9.

But most amusing was the 1990s. The book came out in 2005, and they didn't want to have only 3 pages for the 90s, that would be embarrassing. So they did detail 25 cars. But hilariously they duplicated a 1/3 of them. The Trans Am, Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, even the Thunderbird was listed more than once. Sometimes with only package changes (GT or SVT). The Corvette was listed 3 times. Talk about desperate.

Then, to be even more amusing, they listed the Ford Ranger, Taurus, Escort, the Saturn SL1, Chevy Cavalier, and S-10 pickup as the greatest cars of 1990s.

So why do you think that is? Why is it the number of considered greatest cars rises every single year for 70 years, and then within two decades goes from 89 great cars, to... 8... and then we have to list the same car multiple times and toss in totally lame cars like the SL1 to feel good about the 90s?

You come up with your theory. Here's mine. Government regulations and restrictions and controls forced the auto industry to produce cheap throw away junk. Good enough to sell, but otherwise crap. Who is going to restore my 1982 Buick? Are you kidding? How about my 1990 Lumina I used to own? Is that a joke? "it's not old enough" are you smoking something? You think in 2030 someone is going to pull the rusted frame and busted out plastic panels of a 90 Lumina and restore it? A Cavalier? A Ranger? An SL1? A Honda Accord? Of course not.

When you're sick you don't go to a hospital and say... I don't care what every doctor in this place says I don't have diabetes. These are the experts stating their scientific conclusions in their field of expertise. I could see it if the Sierra Club or Green Peace was the ones out there saying it... but the independent experts I think have to have some clout here. Come on ANDY.

No, actually they are not. The conclusions of the experts in the field of oil agree that oil likely comes from a source other than that of conventional wisdom.

Dr. Thomas Gold is the founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. In 1999 he published a book The Deep Hot Biosphere, in which he makes a convincing case that oil is not a biological function of fossils, and is constantly being produced. Among the evidence:

1. oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Fossils change, but the chemical makeup of the oil is exactly the same.

2. oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient. No fossils, tons of oil... how?

3. oil fields consistently have an out-gassing of Helium. So consistant, Helium detection is commonly used to locate oil. Yet Helium isn't a part of fossils. Where does it come from? Helium is not found in location where there is no oil, natural gas or Methane. In other words, there is a process going on that has nothing to do with fossils.

4. there is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe (Alaska, Russia, Middle East, South America) are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the sides, from a lateral organic source, but from the bottom up. It's coming somewhere below the fossils, not from the fossils.

A Co-Author to the book, a scientist Dr. J.F. Kenney, also published, along with three scientist from Russia, a paper to the National Academy of Sciences, which was titled The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum. (the title is longer, but this is enough)

In the paper, he detailed the following: "The H–C system does not spontaneously evolve heavy hydrocarbons at pressures less than {approx}30 kbar, even in the most favorable thermodynamic environment. The H–C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment."

In plane terms... the pressure and heat needed to create Hydro-Carbons (oil) is far above that found where fossils are. Instead, the environment needed could only be found at the Earth mantle. See point 4 above.

He further says this, and it has not been denied yet: "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

In other words, they're plain stupid. People who actually know something about oil, know that the fossil in 'fossil fuels' is a joke.

Did you know that 'known reserves' of oil in the world has not gone down in the last 10 years? It's doubled. In fact, in the Middle East alone, the amount of known reserves is now estimated at 680 Billion Barrels of oil.

So... yes I am serious. No oil isn't going to run out. I didn't just go to school to recite what some talking head instructor said. I read, do research, and learn. I know what I'm talking about, and I know I am right.

It is late, so I'll ignore the rest of your post for now. Maybe I'll humor it later.

 

[Libsmasher]

[COLOR]It would be slightly.

You are just blathering - you have no logic and no facts.

[COLO]I just think the whole "ecofasict" thing is way over the top. I'm no tree hugger. I'm a classic car and Harley guy.

Ok, now that explains a LOT!

I think that pulling oil from other parts of America should be done if INDEPENDENT EXPERTS, not the tree huggers, not the oil companies can attest that it can be done without huge environmental impact.

And who would that leave that's an "expert"?

 

[top gun]

Andy;37380]
If oil is finite, then we WILL run out. It doesn't matter how much you 'conserve', the rest of the planet will not. You think China is going to slow their use of oil? Not a chance. You think India is? No way. So we can castrate our economy all we want, and the rest of the planet will be more than happy to use up all the oil we do not. So if you are right, we will run out, meanwhile, all our jobs go over seas. Another brilliant strategy.

I took your personal insults out of your quote... they make you look bad. I believe oil is finite. Everyone will eventually run out. You've complained that the cheap gas savings cars are overseas and not in the US. We can conserve AND usher in the newer technology. As Lee Iacocca said... Lead, Follow, Or get out of the way!

Why is it the number of considered greatest cars rises every single year for 70years, and then within two decades goes from 89 great cars, to... 8... and then we have to list the same car multiple times and toss in totally lame cars like the SL1 to feel good about the 90s?

You come up with your theory. Here's mine. Government regulations and restrictions and controls forced the auto industry to produce cheap throw away junk. Good enough to sell, but otherwise crap.

First let me say I know where you're coming from. The thing is the dynamic has changed for 2 reasons. #1 emissions & fuel economy #2 due to that the old technology is on the downside of it's learning curve. It's like trying to make a prop plane perform with jet like abilities.

We're just at the begining of the new technology. The Prius is like the Model T of years past. There will be cars like the all electric Tesla Sports Car that will be taking over as new "great cars".

What I'm saying is it's not near as bleak as when Detroit threw together Vegas, Pintos, Pacers & Gremlins when they really only understood big cars & big motors. It will be alright.

So... yes I am serious. No oil isn't going to run out. I didn't just go to school to recite what some talking head instructor said. I read, do research, and learn. I know what I'm talking about, and I know I am right.

Well I respect that you believe that... but I've read and watched a lot of discussions by experts to the contrary. The vast, Vast, VAST... majority of experts in the field do not believe oil is endless. There are some untapped & even undiscovered oil fields to be sure. But fairly soon oil will only be able to carry the load at an eye popping... you have to be rich to drive a car price.

I don't believe the government is making the whole oil problem up because they just want gas prices to rise.

I know gas is already @ $4 a gallon today and rising daily.

The train has already left the station on higher emissions standards and higher fuel economy as far as I'm concerned. I see no benefit to yelling about it. Won't stop a thing and I've noticed over the years going to a many car shows that concept cars you would never think could actually work in production make there way onto the streets. I think it will be fine.

 

[top gun]

Libsmasher;37395]You are just blathering - you have no logic and no facts.

Casey Dinges of the Strategic and Public Affairs for the American Society of Civil Engineers was on The Ed Shultz Show today to discuss nation's crumbling infrastructure. They also got into the Alaska oil scenario. The consensus was it would only slightly impact the price of gasoline. There were several reasons. And of course the 10 year time issue was also discussed.

Like I said before I'm not against both new tech with higher mpg requirements & more drilling. We just have to be responsible in how we balance everything. It's just like anything else... logging can be done responsibly or you can just strip everything and have a terrible environmental impact. I see it as a balancing act.

And who would that leave that's an "expert"?

I don't know... probably the FERC. (I was going to say Al Gore just to tick you off )

 

[Andy]

I took your personal insults out of your quote... they make you look bad. I believe oil is finite. Everyone will eventually run out. You've complained that the cheap gas savings cars are overseas and not in the US. We can conserve AND usher in the newer technology. As Lee Iacocca said... Lead, Follow, Or get out of the way!

No, I have not complained... I have explained. You are living in a fantasy world where cars over seas can just be brought here and everyone will be happy driving in Ringling Brothers clown mobiles. You have also ignored that many of the cars there that would sell in the US, can not due to regulations and controls of the US government. It will take years to redesign cars. You can't just go to Europe and bring a car that doesn't meet regulations and think the government will allow it to be sold. Basically everything you've said isn't based on reality.

We're just at the begining of the new technology. The Prius is like the Model T of years past. There will be cars like the all electric Tesla Sports Car that will be taking over as new "great cars".

You absolutely must be joking. I'd laugh, but I think you might really mean that. I'll skip the Prius... mercy. As stated, all the 'new technology' isn't. It's been around for years and years, all of it. Tesla Roadster is the modern "great American Car"?

Two seats. Not much room even by todays standards. 170-220 mile range... meaning 80-90 out, you best turn around and go home. Trunk only large enough to carry golf clubs. 3.5 minimal recharge time at home. Plus a $113,200 price tag. $109K base, plus $2K home charger, plus $1.2K mobile charger, plus $1K destination fee (if you don't live in CA where they are).

This is America's greatest car? You realize one of the 'great' aspects of prior 'greatest cars' was that anyone could afford them? Appearently the new socialist view of greatest cars is that only Ted Turner can afford them.

You said something about Ohio. Ok, from Columbus to Cedar Point, is 140 miles. You realize that in the Tesla Roadster, you would be stranded there on a day trip? With the mobile charger, it would take roughly 14 hours to charge up. Where are you going to plug it in at the Cedar Point parking lot? You are not. You are going to go rent an expensive room for the night, and hope the motel doesn't scream about an extension cord out the window.

One time I drove to visit a friend who was 360 miles away. The ol crap, old tech Buick held all my luagage in the trunk, and went 360 miles non-stop. Didn't even need to fill up. The Tesla Roadster would neither be able to hold my stuff, nor make it in one day. I would have had to stop for the night after driving about 2 hours.

Does this mean the Tesla is crap? Of course not. But it certainly isn't one of "America's Greatest Cars".

Well I respect that you believe that... but I've read and watched a lot of discussions by experts to the contrary. The vast, Vast, VAST... majority of experts in the field do not believe oil is endless. There are some untapped & even undiscovered oil fields to be sure. But fairly soon oil will only be able to carry the load at an eye popping... you have to be rich to drive a car price.

As expected. Know-nothing talking heads are preferred source of biased information over scientific facts. You have met my expectations of you.

I don't believe the government is making the whole oil problem up because they just want gas prices to rise.

Have you read Albore's Earth in the balance? In there he exposes the belief government must raise the price of oil in order to make alternative fuels competitive. Have you read the lobbyist Renewable Energy Group's support of increasing the cost of gasoline in order to support renewable energy? There is a huge massive movement to support increase in cost of oil. I read a while back, the group that got Bush to sign the Freedom Car project, said that congress must double the price of gas in order to support a hydrogen fuel economy.

There are tons of companies, spawned by the push for alternative fuels, that have invested interest having a created problem with Oil. If we drilled for our own oil, and we accepted the fact it is a naturally occurring organic process, there would be no need for these horrendously expensive alternative fuel cash cows. Lucky for them, many people are willfully ignorant and buy into all of it.

I know gas is already @ $4 a gallon today and rising daily.

Dropped 15¢ today.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who thinks the Tesla is anything more than a toy is delusional. It is not practical...and unless and until there is a quantum leap in battery technology (as in, an efficiency jump of several hundred percent), an all-electric car will not be. Too limited, too heavy, too expensive.