[Old School]

Here's a list of things caused by Global Warming, so far the list includes claims that trees are less colourful, trees are more colourful, snowfall increase, snowfall decrease, forest decline, forest expansion, droughts, floods, gee whiz these so called experts can't agree on anything, and today a report was released saying that kidney stones will increase because of Global Warming.


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[RavenBoy]

Global Cooling about 10 years ago, weird how it changes so quickly.

[DevilsWin]

If you knew about the science you would know that global cooling is part of global warming.
While the ice is melting the earth is cooled by the change in the oceans water temperature. Then when or if all the ice is gone temperatures will start to rise drastically. Not the kind of climate change we are experiencing now, much worse.

[Coach_Owens87]

Just the same old BS, spit out by people who have no clue about the science behind climate change.

[EkyLb]

If you knew about the science you would know that global cooling is part of global warming.
While the ice is melting the earth is cooled by the change in the oceans water temperature. Then when or if all the ice is gone temperatures will start to rise drastically. Not the kind of climate change we are experiencing now, much worse.

So let me get this right. The earth is cooling down, so the ice continues to melt, thus causing a severe rise in temperature afterwards??


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/...risis.html

* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

[DevilsWin]

So let me get this right. The earth is cooling down, so the ice continues to melt, thus causing a severe rise in temperature afterwards??


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/...risis.html

* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

The Earth's temperature and the atmospheric temperature are different.

It's happening but it's not at a panic level like some would want you to believe.

[EkyLb]

The Earth's temperature and the atmospheric temperature are different.

It's happening but it's not at a panic level like some would want you to believe.

Roughly by 2100 the temp may rise on an overall basis by 0.6 C. Most of which is atrributed to the earth's natural cycle. Now, I don't think anyone is saying we should be as green as possible, and should strive to leave as little of a "carbon footprint" as possible. However, until the technology is fully functional and applicable, we shouldn't put our national economy or security at risk because a few nature zealots want to save a reindeer.

This is from a different site, someone had posted it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Lady Named Irena - a true story

There recently was a death of a 98 year old lady named Irena.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist.

She had an ulterior motive...

She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German).

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of her tool box she carried, and she carried in the back of her truck a Burlap sack, (for larger kids).

She also had a dog in the back, that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in, and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, and arms, and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out, and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family.

Most of course had been gassed.

Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes, or adopted.

Last year Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize....

She LOST.



. . . . . . . Al Gore won, for doing a slide show on Global Warming.
& that slide show was a fake, some was from a HollyWood movie !!!

This IS a true story: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp

[DevilsWin]

If you believe anything you read on Snopes I'm not gonna waste my time.

[Old School]

So let me get this right. The earth is cooling down, so the ice continues to melt, thus causing a severe rise in temperature afterwards??


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/...risis.html

* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

All Good Points!......I find it interesting that in the late 70's these scientist were crying global cooling, that were going into another ice age, which we didn't. Then after 10 years of warming they started crying global warming and that sea levels would rise and flood the coast lines and millions of people would be homeless....so what happens, the earth has cooled down over the past few years, What do all of these so called experts say now...the IPCC reports that were going through a 10 cooling period and that it will start warming again in about 2018, gee whiz give me a break.

These Scientist started out with Global Cooling, that didn't work out, so they went to Global Warming, and that didn't work out , so now they are just calling it Climate Change....so I guess this way they have to be right.

[Old School]

Just the same old BS, spit out by people who have no clue about the science behind climate change.

What ever happened to your thousands of scientist in the IPCC report that said we were causing global warming?

My guess is that most of them opened their eyes and became global warming
skeptics.

[thecavemaster]

What ever happened to your thousands of scientist in the IPCC report that said we were causing global warming?

My guess is that most of them opened their eyes and became global warming
skeptics.

Why do we only use source material that flatters our high opinion of our own opinions? Roll the windows up on your car. Put it in the sun. The inside of the car will soon be warmer than the outside air because heat is trapped in the car. Oh, yes, of course, we can all smoke and smoke and smoke, stay in the same unventilated room and it won't matter because those dirty pinko marxist scientists lie and lie and lie about the effects of second hand smoke.

[Coach_Owens87]

What ever happened to your thousands of scientist in the IPCC report that said we were causing global warming?

My guess is that most of them opened their eyes and became global warming
skeptics.

The top climate scientist, and some of the most prominent scientist in the country, and around the world still agree that global warming is man made.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02862898.htm


The list of "Scientist who dont believe in man made global warming" are absolutely a joke, and are just slapped together to give the right wing deniers some talking points.

The heartland foundation recently put together a list of 500 sceintst who oppose man made global warming, but there was one problem with thier list, a lot of the people didnt know they were on it, and some of them are on the opposite side of this debate.

Here's what some people had to say after discovering they where on that list.

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/bus...hours/1117


Way to go heartland! Im glad they thoroughly check these list so that the trolls on the right can get out and spread their lies.

[Old School]

The top climate scientist, and some of the most prominent scientist in the country, and around the world still agree that global warming is man made.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02862898.htm


The list of "Scientist who dont believe in man made global warming" are absolutely a joke, and are just slapped together to give the right wing deniers some talking points.

The heartland foundation recently put together a list of 500 sceintst who oppose man made global warming, but there was one problem with thier list, a lot of the people didnt know they were on it, and some of them are on the opposite side of this debate.

Here's what some people had to say after discovering they where on that list.

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/bus...hours/1117


Way to go heartland! Im glad they thoroughly check these list so that the trolls on the right can get out and spread their lies.

Coach...your article on alertnet.org was written in March 2007, and I believe since then many scientist that tool part in IPCC's report have since changed their position on man-made global warming.

Information form many scientist's was not allowed in the report because it did not reflect the IPCC's objective, furthermore many inaccuracies were found during the peer review process and were not considered for the report.

I find it amusing the whenever someone disagrees with your opinion on anything you immediately resort to name calling or putdowns.

[RavenBoy]

If its cold outside that mean tomm will be 100 F.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach...your article on alertnet.org was written in March 2007, and I believe since then many scientist that tool part in IPCC's report have since changed their position on man-made global warming.

Information form many scientist's was not allowed in the report because it did not reflect the IPCC's objective, furthermore many inaccuracies were found during the peer review process and were not considered for the report.

I find it amusing the whenever someone disagrees with your opinion on anything you immediately resort to name calling or putdowns.

The heartland foundation was one of the main groups that put out a list of "prominent" scientist that disagreed with man made global warming (Some scientist on their list had been dead for several years, and hadn't seen many of the new discoveries) just shortly after the February 2007 release of the IPCC report. The article I posted in my link just pointed out some of the faults that were in the heartland foundations report.

Prominent groups of sceintist like the American association of the advancement of science, The US National Science academy, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Science, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, etc. all agree with the IPCC report that man is the main cause of the current trend in global warming.

Just for comparison groups like the heartland foundation,the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and scientist like Vincent Gray, a coal chemist and founder of the new Zealand climate science association believe that global warming is not happening, or that it is all due to natural causes.

I believe the list of supporters is a lot stronger than those who oppose.

And I was not calling anyone names, I was just stating the fact that most people who believe global warming is not happening, or is not due to man are very far to the right, and have a lot invested in fossil fuels.

[lawrencefan]

If Al Gore has his way, travel will be much safer on rt 23 without all those coal trucks, and coal miners going to and from work.

[EkyLb]

If Al Gore has his way Ill be paying $400 a month electric bills. I just don't understand where people think all this energy is gonna come from if we can't burn coal, and don't use oil. Wind Power? It can help, but it can't be a major source. For one it will have to be "gathered" in the midwest. Which means it will have to be sent to the coasts. Currently our electric grid can not handle that. Not only that, if the grid was fixed for the Trillions it would cost. What happens if wind patterns change? It is mother nature. Solar is in the same boat. I guess on cloudy days I won't have electricity? If people continue to listen to people like Al Gore and Obama without thinking about what these fools are telling us, we won't have to worry about our grandkids America, because it won't be here.

I was walking to class the other day, and two girls came up to me with pamphlets to vote for Obama, and they asked if I was gonna vote for him. I asked "Why should I?" they responded "Because we will have free helthcare" so I asked them who was gonna pay for this "FREE" healthcare. They said, "nobody, it is gonna be free" I just shook my head and walked away.

[DevilsWin]

If Al Gore has his way Ill be paying $400 a month electric bills. I just don't understand where people think all this energy is gonna come from if we can't burn coal, and don't use oil. Wind Power? It can help, but it can't be a major source. For one it will have to be "gathered" in the midwest. Which means it will have to be sent to the coasts. Currently our electric grid can not handle that. Not only that, if the grid was fixed for the Trillions it would cost. What happens if wind patterns change? It is mother nature. Solar is in the same boat. I guess on cloudy days I won't have electricity? If people continue to listen to people like Al Gore and Obama without thinking about what these fools are telling us, we won't have to worry about our grandkids America, because it won't be here.

I was walking to class the other day, and two girls came up to me with pamphlets to vote for Obama, and they asked if I was gonna vote for him. I asked "Why should I?" they responded "Because we will have free helthcare" so I asked them who was gonna pay for this "FREE" healthcare. They said, "nobody, it is gonna be free" I just shook my head and walked away.

Have you heard of trash fired generators? They're out there, and they produce plenty of energy. I recently saw a show on a major dairy farm that was 100% powered by burning trash. It produced enough energy to supply the farm 24/7/365 and even had a surplus of energy that it sold to the power company.

BTW another interesting factoid about trash in America is that "trash" is the #1 export from the United States. Guess who's buying it,.....China. They are recycling it and making consumer goods that we will end up buying again. Pretty soon something has got to give. This oil we are buying from the middle east is money the United States BORROWED from China so we can give it back to Big Oil. It's just a massive transfer of wealth and we are merely the vehicle and we get charged for delivery!

Bush said it 2 years ago "America is addicted to oil".

There are 33 Million acres of land that oil companies already have leases on that they have never drilled.

A good friend of mine installs solar panel systems all over the US commercial and residential. They make and store energy and most of his customers have a surplus of energy which they directly sell back to the power compaies.

[Old School]

Have you heard of trash fired generators? They're out there, and they produce plenty of energy. I recently saw a show on a major dairy farm that was 100% powered by burning trash. It produced enough energy to supply the farm 24/7/365 and even had a surplus of energy that it sold to the power company.

BTW another interesting factoid about trash in America is that "trash" is the #1 export from the United States. Guess who's buying it,.....China. They are recycling it and making consumer goods that we will end up buying again. Pretty soon something has got to give. This oil we are buying from the middle east is money the United States BORROWED from China so we can give it back to Big Oil. It's just a massive transfer of wealth and we are merely the vehicle and we get charged for delivery!

Bush said it 2 years ago "America is addicted to oil".

There are 33 Million acres of land that oil companies already have leases on that they have never drilled.

A good friend of mine installs solar panel systems all over the US commercial and residential. They make and store energy and most of his customers have a surplus of energy which they directly sell back to the power compaies.

With reports of our energy demands growing by 5% annually, I think it will take every available source known to man including solar, wind, coal, gas, methane etc. to met the demand.

I have heard that oil companies have anywhere from 33 million acres to around 65 million acres leased. The big question is how much oil is on these properties if any, and what is the cost to develop these properties. I would imagine oil companies would drill anywhere and everywhere that would be profitable especially at today's prices.

At one time in Kentucky there was a minimum distance of 660 feet between oil wells and 1,000 feet between vertical gas wells, if this is still effect which I assume it is means that one oil well would take up nearly 5 acres.

[DevilsWin]

With reports of our energy demands growing by 5% annually, I think it will take every available source known to man including solar, wind, coal, gas, methane etc. to met the demand.

I have heard that oil companies have anywhere from 33 million acres to around 65 million acres leased. The big question is how much oil is on these properties if any, and what is the cost to develop these properties. I would imagine oil companies would drill anywhere and everywhere that would be profitable especially at today's prices.

At one time in Kentucky there was a minimum distance of 660 feet between oil wells and 1,000 feet between vertical gas wells, if this is still effect which I assume it is means that one oil well would take up nearly 5 acres.

That's not entirely true. Like I have said before. There were many privately owned wells already producing that were shut down because of low demand which = low prices. Now that demand has increased they are firing those sites back up now. My point is there were and still are many sites that produce oil that are not being used. There are also millions of acres that the oil compaies leased yet never drilled.

So you tell me, what money making business would lease land they had no intention of drilling?

Bottom line is they just want more land to do with as they please so they can keep us locked into a broken system that is breaking the country.

[vundy33]

Not this **** again...cry me a freakin' river.

[vundy33]

That's not entirely true. Like I have said before. There were many privately owned wells already producing that were shut down because of low demand which = low prices. Now that demand has increased they are firing those sites back up now. My point is there were and still are many sites that produce oil that are not being used. There are also millions of acres that the oil compaies leased yet never drilled.

So you tell me, what money making business would lease land they had no intention of drilling?

Bottom line is they just want more land to do with as they please so they can keep us locked into a broken system that is breaking the country.

I could care less about the forests and all that crap as long as I don't have to pay $4.00 a gallon. Sorry for all you tree-huggers on here but I would rather have money in my pocket than a couple acres of Alaskan wilderness.

[DevilsWin]

I could care less about the forests and all that crap as long as I don't have to pay $4.00 a gallon. Sorry for all you tree-huggers on here but I would rather have money in my pocket than a couple acres of Alaskan wilderness.

Make no mistake, I am a tree hugger but only because it makes good economic sense. If the current system continues to go the way it's going. That money in your pocket will surely decrease.

[Jshort5]

I could care less about the forests and all that crap as long as I don't have to pay $4.00 a gallon. Sorry for all you tree-huggers on here but I would rather have money in my pocket than a couple acres of Alaskan wilderness.

:Thumbs:

[Coach_Owens87]

I could care less about the forests and all that crap as long as I don't have to pay $4.00 a gallon. Sorry for all you tree-huggers on here but I would rather have money in my pocket than a couple acres of Alaskan wilderness.

lol, that has to be the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time. But I cant expect much more from the uneducated.

Drilling in Alaska will not effect prices, if it does, it will be very marginal, like say 2-4 cents a gallon.

And I dont know about you, but I would rather breathe, and have safe drinking water, than I would to save a dollar on a tank of gas.

[vundy33]

lol, that has to be the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time. But I cant expect much more from the uneducated.

Drilling in Alaska will not effect prices, if it does, it will be very marginal, like say 2-4 cents a gallon.

And I dont know about you, but I would rather breathe, and have safe drinking water, than I would to save a dollar on a tank of gas.

Bush lifting the ban on domestic drilling helped it drop $16 a barrel last week so I'm sure when they start drilling it will effect it a little more than 2-4 cents. I'm not talking about just the present time either, if you don't think it will help gas prices in the future then you are out of your mind. And I wish you would stop *****ing about clean air and water, at least you don't live in China. We will always have clean water, the government wont tolerate it's citizens having contaminated water to drink. Unless, of course, you live in Elkhorn City.

[Coach_Owens87]

Bush lifting the ban on domestic drilling helped it drop $16 a barrel last week so I'm sure when they start drilling it will effect it a little more than 2-4 cents. I'm not talking about just the present time either, if you don't think it will help gas prices in the future then you are out of your mind. And I wish you would stop *****ing about clean air and water, at least you don't live in China. We will always have clean water, the government wont tolerate it's citizens having contaminated water to drink. Unless, of course, you live in Elkhorn City.

The government may care about our drinking water, but mining companies dont, just go visit Steer Fork, or Montgomery creek in knott county, the water in most peoples wells is horrible, full of chemicals, but no one cares about them, but thats another story, and another thread.

I think youre the crazy one for actually thinking that bush lifting the "executive ban" on offshore drilling affected anything. Congress has to lift the ban before any drilling can actually occur, so bush's little act meant nothing, which just shows you that that The oil market is manipulated, and this is just part of it, nothing more, nothing less.


And it's not me saying that this wont affect gas prices, all the studies say so, but people on the right often forget about facts, and just move on to rhetoric.

Here is an exerpt from a report by TIME

But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.


3-4 cent drop in the next 30 years, wow thank you bush for doing absolutely nothing besides helping your rich oil buddies. It's nice that I can save 3 cents a gallon in 2027 while the president of BP is pulling in 12 million a year, what a wonder president we have. And they dont need to open up our waters, oil companies already have around 30 million acres of land they havent started drilling on, why not use that first?

Instead of investing money into offshore drilling, we should invest in renewable energy like wind and solar, I know that they arent ready for mass use now, but a lot of the blame can go to this adminstration, they have wasted 8 years helping big oil, while they could have been helping America find an answer to our energy problem. Oil is not the answer, but who cares when your raking in record profits.

[Old School]

lol, that has to be the dumbest comment I have heard in a long time. But I cant expect much more from the uneducated.

Drilling in Alaska will not effect prices, if it does, it will be very marginal, like say 2-4 cents a gallon.

And I dont know about you, but I would rather breathe, and have safe drinking water, than I would to save a dollar on a tank of gas.

How can it not effect the price?

ANWR has over 19 million acres and were only wanting to drill on 2,000 acres of the coastal plains region which is about 1/100 of one percent.

The 2,000 acres of the coastal plain region is in close proximity to the Alaskan pipeline only 74 miles away. ANWR reserve has over 50 Billon barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of recoverable cubic feet of gas, which could last for more than 25 years.

Another interesting fact is that currently the pipeline is only running at 75% capacity because peak oil production Alaska has been in the decline since the 1988. Oil supplys from the Alaskan North Slope account for 25% of the U.S. domestic production.

[Coach_Owens87]

How can it not effect the price?

ANWR has over 19 million acres and were only wanting to drill on 2,000 acres of the coastal plains region which is about 1/100 of one percent.

The 2,000 acres of the coastal plain region is in close proximity to the Alaskan pipeline only 74 miles away. ANWR reserve has over 50 Billon barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of recoverable cubic feet of gas, which could last for more than 25 years.

Another interesting fact is that currently the pipeline is only running at 75% capacity because peak oil production Alaska has been in the decline since the 1988. Oil supplys from the Alaskan North Slope account for 25% of the U.S. domestic production.

It wouldnt really affect prices becuase there isnt enough oil there to help. Experts predict that the peak amount of oil we could get from ANWR is around 780,000 barrels per day by the year 2030( The US consumes around 20 million barrels a day), and thats assuming that we started drilling there today.

Earlier studies by the EIA gave a higher figure for max oil output in ANWR, but those figures have changed, and those are the ones I used in this post.

EIA said its projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. The figure is low enough that OPEC could neutralize any price impact by decreasing supplies to match the additional production from Alaska, EIA noted.

that pretty much just said that drilling in ANWR is a waste. And in my opinion so is drilling all these new offshore sites that the Idiot bush is proposing. But If you watch fox (and you have admitted you are a fan of the Faux news network)you would probably assume that we must drill, and drill now, becuase thats all they have been reporting for months now.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nati...rices.html

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

[Old School]

It wouldnt really affect prices becuase there isnt enough oil there to help. Experts predict that the peak amount of oil we could get from ANWR is around 780,000 barrels per day by the year 2030( The US consumes around 20 million barrels a day), and thats assuming that we started drilling there today.

Earlier studies by the EIA gave a higher figure for max oil output in ANWR, but those figures have changed, and those are the ones I used in this post.

EIA said its projection is that ANWR oil production would amount to 0.4 percent to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. The figure is low enough that OPEC could neutralize any price impact by decreasing supplies to match the additional production from Alaska, EIA noted.

that pretty much just said that drilling in ANWR is a waste. And in my opinion so is drilling all these new offshore sites that the Idiot bush is proposing. But If you watch fox (and you have admitted you are a fan of the Faux news network)you would probably assume that we must drill, and drill now, becuase thats all they have been reporting for months now.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nati...rices.html

http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/414808.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Yes I admit, I watch FOX News the most watch news network in the World, along with the other networks. In my opinion it is ridiculous to believe Americas growing energy demands can be met by just wind, solar and geothermal anytine in the near future let alone within the next 10 years as Gore suggest.

By drilling in ANWR and off the coast the U.S. can add millions of barrels of oil daily, not counting the oil that can made from coal, and by doing this we would increase our surplus of oil lowering the price futher. While drilling for more oil and turning Coal to liquid we can also build nuclear power plants and still continue to better develop the wind and solar power systems.

Oil and Coal alone will not solve the long term energy problems, but it will give us time to develop new systems and expand on what we now know. The transition from oil and coal will not happen overnight, or over the next decade, it could take forty years or more if then even.