>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't know if you're aware of this, but the British press (and other media outlets) have been critical of the U.S. media for not reporting enough on the bad science involving ClimateGate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The UK press is extensively covering the recent events from fraudulent IPCC claims, to the IPCC chief's economic gains directly related to those fraudulent claims to the UK Parliamentary's Inquiry into the scandal and the "misleading" disclosures from the UEA to that Inquiry which are showing they are still up to their old "tricks".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>At least there's a local station in San Diego, KUSI, which has done 2 separate specials exposing this fraud. Of course, the lead for those stories IS only one of the founder's of the Weather Channel, so he should clearly be ignored in favor of publishing editorials editorials declaring "nothing to see here" by Gaia's messiah and chief monetary beneficiary. ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Luckily there is no harm done by trying to spread the global warming BS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Chalk that up to Al Gore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587667,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, maybe he's only killed some people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>BS or not, I'd still like to see us and reduce the use of coal and move toward the use of more solar power/wind and batteries for power and transportation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Disclaimer : I may be incorrect in my assessment of your opinion here so feel free to correct me if I'm off base.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This attitude is exactly why I despise the environmental movement as it now exists. The very concept of "doing something" is regarded as more enlightened regardless of whether the "something" is actually beneficial or harmful. This attitude has led to such devastating economic and human consequences as to rival the great wars and plagues of this planet's history. Hundreds of millions have died unnecessarily due to awful environmental policy. Tens of millions due to DDTs banning alone. Billions are wasted on every new feel good concept to help the planet survive the virus of our terrestrially insignificant species. Trillions are on the line if the warming maniacs get their way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From banning DDT to ethanol, so-called environmental concerns take precedence in the name of doing "something". When the passage of time presents the devastating results of these policies the enviros collectively shrug their shoulders and say "at least we tried". Completely ignoring the consequences of their policies because their intentions were pure is the standard. Disregarding or ignoring the self-serving or controlling intentions of the the politicians who enacted their hare-brained policies is standard to advance the cause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That people's food supplies will be crippled due to radically altering the use of a worldwide food staple in the name of "clean" fuel was cited prior to its mandate. Once enacted and the price of corn tripled causing millions to starve the collective shrug was palpable. We now know that the "environmental" cost has been higher than even the worst predictions due to water use, deforestation, fuel consumption of farm equipment and the lesser known consumer's cost due to less energy per gallon than fossil fuels. The response is to shrug and say they still think we should do something like wind or solar or geothermal. When someone like me mentions Spain's disastrous venture into the "green jobs" revolution, the response is "well, the USA will do it better." When I bring up the complete lack of private venture capital because of an inability to get a return due to the inherent nature of the technology, they respond with some variant of blame for "greedy capitalists". When I point out that even Pickens knew to abandon the "Pickens Plan" because it could only possibly succeed with government finance and when that was not forthcoming he moved on, they'll say "at least he tried". UGH!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As a rural property owner I've met and dealt with these people entirely too many times than can possibly be good for my health or sanity. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All that and I've not even discussed the devastating evaporation of our civil and private property rights thanks to the Endangered Species and Clean Air/Water/Soil/whateveryougot Acts. ;) Can't help myself, I guess. *shrug*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Adding solar/wind along with electric cars, for short trips, to the mix would reduce the amount of noxious gas being dumped into the atmosphere. This change could take place over several decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How does the electricity for these "electric" cars get generated? Solar and wind, as we harness them, cannot produce enough energy to power a nation like the US, let alone if we add umpteen million electric cars to the grid. That electricity must come from fossil or nuclear fuels. Electric cars will create more use of gas, coal and oil in those power plants, thereby adding more "noxious" pollutants to the atmosphere. This says nothing for the safety cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is exactly what I mean. We can prove these suggestions are counter-productive to the stated goal, but suggesting them makes people "feel good" about doing "something".
>>>>>
>>>>>Electric vehicles can be powered by that which is not oil. Generate electricity from nuclear, coal, wind, solar, tidal, biomass, lots and lots of options.
>>>>
>>>>"Alternative" energy sources (wind, solar, tidal, biomass, geothermal, etc) do not provide enough energy return for them to be efficient as production for a country as large and energy dependent as the US. We must continue to use fossil fuels to handle the energy requirements until another alternative is discovered (fusion?) or employed (reprocessing). We have an option to deploy more nuclear plants, which I'm all for, but in order to make a dent in our needs we need to start immediately fast-tracking new construction and we may get them fully operational and taking on a significant percentage in 30 years or so. As you and I know there is no such plan in the works nor likely to be successful due to regulations and NIMBY legal challenges. Thus we're stuck.
>>>>
>>>>>Continue to use gas powered cars = completely support Islamic terrorism along with economic extortion by US and foreign oil companies.
>>>>
>>>>Whether the US buys oil from a particular country or region or not, it will be bought.
>>>
>>>Especially if we do not reduce our demand by using alternatives - Nuclear, coal, wind, solar, etc. All of which can be used to charge an electric vehicle.
>>>
>>> > It is the single most important global commodity as it's the most efficient and affordable energy source used en-mass in the world. If it makes you feel better, perhaps we should limit our purchases exclusively to countries from the western hemisphere.
>>>
>>>Oil companies have been raping the consumers of the civilized world for decades. I want to reduce consumption, not just shift to a different pipe. Natural gas comes from the same companies and the same fields. No difference.
>>>
>>>> I would have no objection, after all, we already get most of our oil from Canada, eh. However, do not be fooled by the rhetorical argument that if the US stops buying "Arab" oil that it will have any significant effect on their ability to sell their product.
>>>
>>>It certainly will have a significant effect on all the oil producers if the US reduces our oil consumption significantly - not just switches pipes.
>>
>>Please shut down the Saudis first as Canada is your number one oil source. :)
>
>Glad to hear that; I was afraid it was Venezuela. They aren't much better allies than the Arab nations these days. Actually I wouldn't call them allies at all, they're just in our hemisphere.

I don't know if Hugo C is sending any oil to the USA. Well, mabey some to Jake, but other than that, none.