Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

[ding]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

 

[ding]

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel

Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

I have never understood the rationale of growing food for fuel while we have so many starving people in the world. This just seems like a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

 

[ding]

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Define pollution? Is CO2 pollution?

 

[Lewdog]

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Actually none. There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process. Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel. The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money. They don't give a crap about the environment.


Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study

Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf

Then I agree that is a dumb rule. But...before you go saying Obama did it in order to make a friend happy because they are probably the one who makes it, you should show proof of that. Also, who says Obama is the one that is relying on making these decisions? And not just listening to the experts? Last time I checked, Obama was a politician and not a scientist?

 

[Lewdog]

I don't know how much reality is in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but they postulate the drop in water temperature around the Jet Stream makes a big deal. I'm asking if that is true or not.

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

 

[Lewdog]

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel

Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

I have never understood the rationale of growing food for fuel while we have so many starving people in the world. This just seems like a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Well I never understood the idea of the government paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops.

 

[westwall]

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel




Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Actually none. There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process. Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel. The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money. They don't give a crap about the environment.


Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study

Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf

Then I agree that is a dumb rule. But...before you go saying Obama did it in order to make a friend happy because they are probably the one who makes it, you should show proof of that. Also, who says Obama is the one that is relying on making these decisions? And not just listening to the experts? Last time I checked, Obama was a politician and not a scientist?

The "experts" are those that obama placed in their positions. In every case that has been published, Solyndra being the most egregious example, of green companies getting big government handouts they have ALL been friends of obama. EVERY single time.

 

[westwall]

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Partially you are correct. The EPA when it was first formed, by Nixon of all people, was interested in the environment and how to improve it. The obama admin changed all of that and he turned the EPA into an arm of his political goals. Science got tossed right out the window and everything the EPA has done has been agenda driven.

 

[Lewdog]

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Actually none. There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process. Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel. The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money. They don't give a crap about the environment.


Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study

Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf

Then I agree that is a dumb rule. But...before you go saying Obama did it in order to make a friend happy because they are probably the one who makes it, you should show proof of that. Also, who says Obama is the one that is relying on making these decisions? And not just listening to the experts? Last time I checked, Obama was a politician and not a scientist?

The "experts" are those that obama placed in their positions. In every case that has been published, Solyndra being the most egregious example, of green companies getting big government handouts they have ALL been friends of obama. EVERY single time.

I'm sorry, but you have to PROVE that statement. You can't just say it. Hell I'm showing proof that Russia worked hard to influence the Presidential Election to get Trump elected, and people still don't believe it. So I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word for it.

Also, what is the length of time someone stays the head of the EPA? Take for example, Comey's position, his job has a 6 year term limit which is longer than the term limit of the President.

 

[ding]

There was ZERO reality in that movie. That's the problem with the majority of the people who believe in AGW. They get their science from movies.

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

 

[Lewdog]

Then why did someone just show that the theory of cooling water temperatures affecting the jet stream and causing cooler winters in its path as true?

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

 

[ding]

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

How is it over reacting when they publish rules that are un meetable? Below are two stories. One deals with companies being fined for not using a fuel that doesn't even exist. How does that make any sense at all. And below that is the EPA rules regarding dust that are so strict National Parks fail due to naturally occurring levels. How can we possibly be over reacting when imbeciles such as this are passing rules that not just are stupid, but drive people out of business?


A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist

Companies Face Fines for Not Using Unavailable Biofuel

Cattlemen Urge EPA Not To Regulate Ag. Out of Business

Ok, on the first one, why didn't companies create their own manufacturing of that biofuel instead of depending on outside manufacturers to make it?

I have never understood the rationale of growing food for fuel while we have so many starving people in the world. This just seems like a predictable surprise waiting to happen.

Well I never understood the idea of the government paying farmers to NOT grow certain crops.

Same thing. They could have paid them to grow it and given it to Africa.

 

[westwall]

Clearly you have no idea how expensive bio fuel production is. To give you a little education, the US Navy is having to buy (thanks to the obama admin) bio jet fuel (no doubt produced by a friend of obama) which on average is more than 5 times the cost of standard jet fuel. Bio fuels have to be made in a REFINERY. Take a look and see when the last refinery was allowed to be built in the USA. The cost to make the fuel would put the companies involved out of business. Thus they pay the fine. However, if there is no fuel even available in the whole wide world why is it OK for the EPA to issue fines?

Ok, and how much pollution does this biofeul save on the environment?

Actually none. There is regular fuel used in its creation, in addition to the extra refining costs and pollution from that process. Below are just a very few of the reports and studies that show biofuels are MORE polluting than any fossil fuel. The reality is you have been sold a bill of goods by people who simply want your money. They don't give a crap about the environment.


Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline – study

Biofuels can increase ozone pollution more than gasoline - study | Climate Home - climate change news

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study

Biofuels cause pollution, not as green as thought - study


That is, we need to consider the damage caused by producing them in addition to using them. For gasoline, the life cycle includes extracting and refining crude oil, and distributing and combusting the gasoline itself. The life cycle of corn ethanol includes growing and fermenting grain, and distilling, distributing, and combusting the ethanol itself.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-con...-and-alternative-transport-PNAS-July-2015.pdf

Then I agree that is a dumb rule. But...before you go saying Obama did it in order to make a friend happy because they are probably the one who makes it, you should show proof of that. Also, who says Obama is the one that is relying on making these decisions? And not just listening to the experts? Last time I checked, Obama was a politician and not a scientist?

The "experts" are those that obama placed in their positions. In every case that has been published, Solyndra being the most egregious example, of green companies getting big government handouts they have ALL been friends of obama. EVERY single time.

I'm sorry, but you have to PROVE that statement. You can't just say it. Hell I'm showing proof that Russia worked hard to influence the Presidential Election to get Trump elected, and people still don't believe it. So I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word for it.

Also, what is the length of time someone stays the head of the EPA? Take for example, Comey's position, his job has a 6 year term limit which is longer than the term limit of the President.

Look up the obama EPA appointments. It really is that easy.

 

[ding]

They push their accelerated CO2 emission cases - which are totally unrealistic - over their base case projections and overestimate the projections for atmospheric CO2, surface temperature and sea level rise at every turn. Their attempts to blame natural disasters on a perceived 1C increase in temperature and a 120 parts per MILLION increase in CO2 is ludicrous. If you want to believe it, go right ahead. Sell your car and your house and go live of of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food. Just eat it raw.

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

 

[Lewdog]

Now you're just overreacting. Do you want the U.S. to be like China where the air is so bad we have to walk around wearing breathing masks?

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

 

[ding]

Surely you don't believe the reason they are walking around with masks is because of CO2, right? Our air quality has improved significantly since the 1970's. CO2 is not a pollutant regardless of what anyone else says. CO2 is a vital part of the carbon cycle that all life on earth requires to exist.

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?

 

[Lewdog]

and why has OUR air quality improved? It's because of EPA regulations... the same regulations that Trump wants to get rid of.

I'm actually confused about a comment that westwall made. Why should we build more refineries when the U.S. is the largest producer of refined oil in the world?

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?

Hey dipshit...do you not understand? WE ARE THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF REFINED OIL IN THE WORLD. We have an abundant reserve of refined oil. Why do we need to build more fineries and add pollution to the environment when we are already outproducing our use and sales of it?

 

[ding]

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?

Hey dipshit...do you not understand? WE ARE THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF REFINED OIL IN THE WORLD. We have an abundant reserve of refined oil. Why do we need to build more fineries and add pollution to the environment when we are already outproducing our use and sales of it?

I get that. I really do. I am just wondering why you think your beliefs matters in what other people decide to do with their own money.

 

[ding]

Well... sure the EPA did a great job back in the 70's. They have zero business regulating CO2. So, I'll draw the line there.

Why should the US build more refineries? First of all the US doesn't build refineries. Free enterprise does. Secondly, our infrastructure is crumbling, we should be modernizing many things, refineries being one of many. Secondly, it is in the best interest of our national security to have energy independence at the upstream and downstream sectors.

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?

Hey dipshit...do you not understand? WE ARE THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF REFINED OIL IN THE WORLD. We have an abundant reserve of refined oil. Why do we need to build more fineries and add pollution to the environment when we are already outproducing our use and sales of it?

Here's a good example, I'm going to buy a new car. I decide I will buy a Suburban that gets 14 mpg. Do you have a say in that too?

Lewdog

 

[Lewdog]

Did you not just read what I said? The U.S. produces the most refined oil in the world. Why do we need more refineries or to change anything?

You going to tell more lies about me in this thread to?

I read what you wrote, why do you believe the US government is going to build refineries? Let's assume you don't, ok? Wouldn't you think that the ones spending the money to build refineries would have an economic reason? Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?

There is NO need to build them. There is NO need to build more polluting refineries when we are already the largest producer of refined oil in the world and have gone from oil dependent to an abundance of oil reserves that are pretty much worthless at the moment.

Yeah...you sound so intelligent now. First you tell a lie about me in another thread, and now you are defending your point with, "Or do you believe they want to build them just to piss you off?" You have about 0.0001% credibility with me at the moment.

Should the refiners consult you before every investment decision they make or just on refineries?

Hey dipshit...do you not understand? WE ARE THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF REFINED OIL IN THE WORLD. We have an abundant reserve of refined oil. Why do we need to build more fineries and add pollution to the environment when we are already outproducing our use and sales of it?

Here's a good example, I'm going to buy a new car. I decide I will buy a Suburban that gets 14 mpg. Do you have a say in that too?

Lewdog

I'm asking you a ******* question and you keep answering me back with insults and not answers.

WHY DO WE NEED TO BUILD MORE REFINERIES AND CREATE MORE POLLUTION WHEN THE U.S IS THE LARGEST REFINED OIL PRODUCING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND WE HAVE ABUNDANCE OF OIL RESERVES?