Free Republic

I hope Frist realizes that any hopes of the Presidency he might have had just died with this "deal".

The sixth (and some say fourth) most common element in the universe - and it is represented in the Earth's crust at only .1% ?

The point remains though that .1% of the Earth's crust is rather alot of material...are you bringing this up in relation to the non-fossil fuel theory of oil production?

Nope.

The envirocult says the sky is falling, the MSM says "really this time!", and for some strange reason I see a freeper parroting the same line.

Your point about envirowhackos predicting the sky was falling over and over misses the point.

No, again it is *the* point.

The envirocult and its allies in the media have incessantly led the drumbeat that world oil supplies are about to run out. Again...and again...and again.

Each time, apparently unlike the last, this time they really mean it.

Ok, you've bought in that this time it is for real for some unascertainable reason, as the argument is the same as it has been. Why on earth should the American public buy into the propaganda and give up more of their freedom now? I say let's give it a decade or ten, and if this time the environuts are right I'll pay for a fillup of John Kerry's SUV...err...or something like that.

The only people I know that claim oil is near infinite still admit we will have to drill deeper to get it. Costs per barrel will continue to climb. Nobody is predicting declines in energy use.

Mathusian mathematics has continually failed since well, Malthus. Though the simplicity does continue to seduce for some strange reason. And just like agriculture, the efficieny of oil production will only increase, especially if government, and most notably environmental crusaders, are kept out of it.

And of course then some time in the future, someone will build a better mousetrap, earn himself a fortune, and develop a better way to power an automobile, and just like the worries about mast timbers, whale oil, or arable land, people will look back in amusement about the doomsaying of our time...

As I understand it the arab states need to pump at near capacity to keep up their debt service. To reiterate GOOD, pump them dry before it becomes too profitable for them again.

That isn't clear at all. In fact, the Saudis rather notably cut back on production before the election to try and get Kerry elected.

And again, opening up all American reserves to exploration is smart to begin with, holding large amounts of any resource in reserve only gouges the customer - as I mentioned most notably in regards to diamonds. The only difference here is that while De Beers primarily benefits itself by restricting the market, the American restrictions primarily benefit OPEC and the Leftist gliteratti.

Even as an investment though it's not a horrible bet. Find me someone that sells oil futures more then a few years out. In the short term its all about speculation.

Certainly even if oil futures are normally dominated by short term concerns, the coming shortage is a gold mine for those informed enough to get in right now...no?

Which is interesting because as I challenged you the only people I see rushing to invest in oil are the same ones that fell for gold a few years back.

Address the two points raised to you.

1) You've agreed with the envirocult that oil supplies are dwindling and will be depleted at some point in the near future.

Yet the US continues to hold easily accessible oil off the market.

How is this so? Please, I'd love to know how we are about to be unable to meet demand and yet also have so much available we can afford to value an unobstructed beach view for the glitterati higher.

2) The same prediction you are making, on much the same basis, has been made for 30-40 straight years and been proven false each time. Explain why this time Chicken Little is right and the sky really is falling.

Next the libs will come up with toilets that castrate men who try to pee standing up. Look out for the "human rights" tribunals enforcing that men's and woman's haircuts must cost the same.

I seem to recall a German inventing a toilet that hectored men to sit while using it. And to think these Europeans once ruled the world...

I think the oil we've gotten till now will be thought of as very inexpensive by our descendants. We should drain the arabs oil before it becomes worth even more. What we don't want is the arabs being the only exporters at the high price end of the oil as energy market.

The problem with your argument is one that environmentalists consistently make. At some point, without government interference, we will no longer use oil to power our vehicles. Technology will progress, and some smart inventors and businessmen will find something better.

This will happen long before the notion of running out of oil will even be a serious concern.

As that point oil will become worthless. Well, ok, that isn't exactly true, as oil has other uses to, but the notion of hording supplies to overpay an Arabic monopoly so we have some large reserve will seem as silly as the notion of hording whales for their oil...

Artificially restricting supplies only serves to raise prices and gouge the consumer. Just ask De Beers.

We have no chance of supplying our current demands for oil, that is a simple fact not an opinion.

Interesting. You didn't address the point when I've raised it several times now, but this exact same statement has been made for decades by the same people raising it now.

Explain to me how it is that the predictions of the same raised in 1975, 1985, and 1995 were all wrong...but these same people are correct now in 2005, even as they take no stock in their predictions on a personal level...

I can presume that unlike the rest of the envirodoom cult you stand by what you claim and have purchased as much in oil futures as you can afford, right? Based on your argument they would be a guaranteed pay off, no?

Environmentals have argued that we face imminent resource depletion, not only on oil, but a range of resources due to simple Malthusian mathematics that will lead to apocalyse for decades now.

As the famous Simon wager pointed out this is a load of bunk.

We will never run out of oil, even if accepted oil creation theory is exactly correct, as the market will take care of the problem.

But this is all besides the point for the forseeable future. Large tracts of easily recoverable domestic oil are off limits now for nothing more then rampant "not in my backyardism" and Gaiaist worship.

Were oil reserves really facing imminent exhaustion, or an inability to meet increased demand, this simply would not be the case. Before the highways in LA come to a halt (for a reason other then traffic), the brahmins of the coast will be forced to give up their precious sea views.

Much as I take no stock in global warming theory while enviromentalists jet set to ecological conferences in trendy locales, I see no reason to buy into the peak oil combined with imminent collapse theories they self same annointed elite proclaim as yet another means to control the masses.

When 250 former Swift Boat veterans claimed John Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam service, the media yawned and said the sworn statements of these men was not enough to go public with the story.

But when 12 terrorists claimed that US soldiers flushed a book down a toilet, even if it is a physical impossibility, the MSM went with the story immediately, even if it would hurt America's war effort and possibly lead to the deaths of innocents.

So it is nice to know to the MSM that the word of a terrorist is worth more then that of a score of servicemen.

Again, the evidence is obvious. As long as environmentalists succeed in stopping most domestic production as part of their religious faith, there is no serious argument supplies are short.

We've heard for 40 straight years we are about to run out of oil from exactly the same people. Why are you placing your faith in the High Priests of the Church of Gaia now?

Meanwhile, back in our galaxy, our solar system, and on our world - what is the percentage of ALL matter that contains (or is) carbon (in one FORM or another)?

Based on this chart;

http://www.science.co.il/PTelements.asp?s=Earth

about .1% of the Earth's crust is Carbon.

Gas prices are high because of Clinton Administration taxes.

And the requirement for dozens of different blends of gasoline, the lacking of new refining facilities, NIMBY activism stopping domestic oil production, etc...

The question you should ask yourself is whether you want to believe at least some elements of the peak oil crowd, or the Saudi "Royal" Family when they ask you to trust them?

No the choice is to believe environmentalists that have made the exact same false claim for nearly 50 years or the market. Let us be quite clear here, were peak oil claims anything other then unmitigated bullshit, and roundly recognized as such, we would not even be discussing the opening up of the obscure locals in Alaska - we'd already be obscuring the coastal views of the NIMBY crowd in CA and FL.

It could be either, since the press is the mouthpiece of the left. Hammering Bush on high prices (while they block his programs) and pushing for alternative "clean" energy sources arguing that Bush's friends are making money with high oil. But I still bet it is the Saudi's who are pulling the strings, not Bush.

The Left has proven more then willing to work with the Saudis over the last few years. You know who Joseph "Yellowcake" Wilson IV works for don't you?

Which is really funny. Because the American Negro in question was a dead ringer for him.

What actor are we talking about?

Still, he isn't expecting to win them over. "No one really relishes having ancestors who committed such heinous acts," he says.

As a practical matter, are today's Tunisians actually even related to ancient Carthinigians? The area was colonized by Rome after they destroyed the city and conquered by the Arabs after all.

"The most regretful fact is that these statements have appeared now when the world is observing the 60th anniversary of the historic victory over Nazism, with a crucial contribution from the peoples of the Soviet Union supported by the anti-Hitler coalition allies," emphasizes the resolution.

True enough, the Soviet people did bleed the Germans dry. Of course had the Soviets not allied with NAZI Germany in 1939 in a bid for territorial aggrandizement, it is unlikely the human costs would have been so high...

So are you sure the headline is from 2005? I distinctly remember hearing this in 1995, and for that matter, 1985. Further I have the distinct impression one could dig up a similar analysis from 1975, and if one had particular ability to research disproven ancient environmental scare mongering without falling asleep, perhaps even 1965.