More fuel for thought

On Apr 14, 5:09*pm, Dan Luke wrote:

Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

Certainly not alone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:09 pm, Dan Luke wrote:

Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

Typical response from the clueless.

:Certainly not alone...
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

And Fred Singer was soundly beaten in a debate with that emminant scientist,
Al Gore.

They did have a debate, didn't they? Hey, Dan, when you boy going to show
his stuff?

{crickets chirping}

On Apr 14, 5:09 pm, Dan Luke wrote:

Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

Hey, genius; tell us how the falsification process works in the scientific
method, and how your hysterical pals are NOT missing the point.

{crickets chirping}

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:23:15 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:




Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

Hey, genius; tell us how the falsification process works in the scientific
method, and how your hysterical pals are NOT missing the point.

{crickets chirping}

You're babbling, Barrow.

And when it comes to crickets chirping, you're a regular live bait
stand.

The ol' Perfesser's CO2 argument?

Relative humidity?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:02:41 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
outh.net wrote:

Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

Typical response from the clueless.

:Certainly not alone...
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_consens us

And Fred Singer was soundly beaten in a debate with that emminant scientist,
Al Gore.

Haw!

Who cares?


They did have a debate, didn't they? Hey, Dan, when you boy going to show
his stuff?

{crickets chirping}


"when you boy going to show his stuff?"

Eh?

Are you drunk, Matty?


Oh...and Fred Singer is an Exxon-Mobil whore and a liar. When's the
last time he published any peer reviewed research?

*Now* I hear the crickets.

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

Yep.

Strange people those oil producers, they keep improving the recovery
technology and getting more oil out of formerly "dry" holes.

What, is there someone that believes oil forms in a big pool and all
of it gets sucked out with a big pipe?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

Yep.

Strange people those oil producers, they keep improving the recovery
technology and getting more oil out of formerly "dry" holes.

What, is there someone that believes oil forms in a big pool and all
of it gets sucked out with a big pipe?


Actually, it's a plastic straw in the shape of a rabbit.

On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" wrote:
I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...


According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.