kallend 2,182 #51 July 13, 2007 It would be really nice if you could learn to use the "quote" and "reply" buttons provided, then we would be able more easily to figure out who wrote what in your responses. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #52 July 13, 2007 Quote It would be really nice if you could learn to use the "quote" and "reply" buttons provided, then we would be able more easily to figure out who wrote what in your responses. I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps Billvon should do that, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #53 July 13, 2007 well i was doing other things for that very reason but, someone thought i was doing it for a different reason and used it as an excuse to say something about it. so now i do the same thing they do.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #54 July 17, 2007 www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/7/17/noaa-issues-grim-weather-report.html Funny weather.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #55 July 17, 2007 > Its necessary to point out what were doing there because the left keeps > trying to mislead everyone . . . Well, there you go. I imagine some people feel that constant updates on our climate are necessary because the right keeps trying to mislead everyone. I guess both sides are "beating the drum." >the people trying their hardest to prove gw is man made aren’t even > scientist there democrat public figures . . . And the people screaming the loudest about "FRAUD! JUST LIKE HITLER! UN CONSPIRACY!" are conservative politicians, novelists and right wing spokespeople. No more worth listening to. I would recommend you ignore the latest Newsmax or Greenpeace bulletin and educate yourself on the science, say from NOAA, NCAR, NASA or the Science/Nature publications. There's a lot less yelling there. >Just because the numbers they show you might be the actual numbers . . . Nothing I can add to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #56 July 18, 2007 >Just because the numbers they show you might be the actual numbers . . . Nothing I can add to that. Quote either i didnt explain what i was trying to say correctly or your just missing it but here it goes again if you take a number ie 350ppm of co2 and put it on a chart,graph and use it in comparison to others ie methane, nitrous oxide, and misc gases you can make a chart that says co2 makes up 99% of the green house gases, but just because the numbers are true doesnt mean that its conclusion is factual if you leave out others ie water vapor (not droplets) adding that number to the graph would would then change co2 to 3% of the greenhouse gases. does this clear up the point i was trying to makeI would recommend you ignore the latest Newsmax or Greenpeace bulletin and educate yourself on the science, say from NOAA, NCAR, NASA or the Science/Nature publications. There's a lot less yelling there. Quote i look at alot of different sources nasa noaa included, but i dont waste my time with newsmax or greenpeace social science is not science based on facts and is therefore uselesslight travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #57 July 18, 2007 >you can make a chart that says co2 makes up 99% of the green house gases . . . CO2 doesn't make up 99% of the greenhouse gases. In terms of overall effect it makes up about 10-26% of the overall greenhouse effect, depending on what other gases are around. In stormy areas (lots of water vapor) CO2 contributes about 10%; in arid areas it's closer to 26%. Now, in the upper atmosphere (which is quite dry) the combination of CO2, methane, NOx and particulates make up 90+% of the total greenhouse effect, but I assume that's not what you're talking about >adding that number to the graph would would then change co2 to 3% of > the greenhouse gases. does this clear up the point i was trying to make. Not really. CO2 contributes way more than 3% of the total blocking of re-radiation of infrared. I can't think of any way to arrange the numbers to make that percentage valid. Now, if you're talking about overall increase (what's called forcing) then you might be able to pull out a 3% number somehow. CO2 contributes about 1.4 watts per square meter, which is where most of the warming is coming from. Methane is .5, NOx is .15 w/m^2. Perhaps you are thinking of the total forcing, which is 1.6 to 2.4 w/m^2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites azdiver 0 #58 July 18, 2007 wasn't really referring to greenhouse effect in those numbers i was referring to gas in volume ie ppm and if you take and break down the parts, co2 accounts for roughly 3%light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #59 July 18, 2007 > i was referring to gas in volume ie ppm and if you take and break >down the parts, co2 accounts for roughly 3% CO2 accounts for roughly .04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is around 78%, oxygen is 21%, argon 1%, methane 0.0002%, water vapor 0-3%. (Usually close to zero.) I'm not sure where that 3% comes from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #60 July 20, 2007 Quote from Lee Terry (R-Neb) in a speech yesterday: ---------------- Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that. Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. ------------------ Is anyone else worried (from either side of the debate) that our leaders know so little about science? Or are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites azdiver 0 #61 July 20, 2007 nitrogen oxygen and argon are not green house gases though. these are water vapor 95% carbon dioxide 3% methane 0.36% nitrous oxide 0.95% misc gases(cfc ect) 0.072%light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #62 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote from Lee Terry (R-Neb) in a speech yesterday: ---------------- Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that. Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. ------------------ Is anyone else worried (from either side of the debate) that our leaders know so little about science? Or are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? He's a Nebraska Republican, what do expect? Einstein?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #63 July 20, 2007 QuoteOr are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #64 July 20, 2007 >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? You might want to re-check your sources on that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #65 July 20, 2007 Quote >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. Oh really???I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Quote But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #66 July 20, 2007 Quote Quote >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. Oh really???I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Quote But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Can you give cites for predictions, by Democrats, of "vast" environmental damage?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #67 July 20, 2007 >I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in >comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Not the deciding factor, one factor. It certainly puts lie to the claims that we have crippling unreasonable gas prices. BTW if you missed those discussions here are a few: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=420963;search_string=ANWR;#420963 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1537397;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC >There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Fair enough. So now you are claiming that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #68 July 20, 2007 Quote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #69 July 20, 2007 Quote>I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in >comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Not the deciding factor, one factor. Really? Who was pushing that point? Quote It certainly puts lie to the claims that we have crippling unreasonable gas prices.Does this have anything to do with what I said? QuoteBTW if you missed those discussions here are a few: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=420963;search_string=ANWR;#420963 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1537397;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASCNice reads. What do they have to do with what I have said? Quote>There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Fair enough. So now you are claiming that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage? No. How'd you get that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #70 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Does that count as "all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #71 July 20, 2007 >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) >What do they have to do with what I have said? You said you missed the discussions where gas prices in comparison to other countries were a factor. There they are. >No. How'd you get that? Oh, this game again! "I want my jet." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #72 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Does that count as "all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction" I'm pretty sure these guys are Dems. http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp You asked for cites. I produced one, from one of the more vocal opponents of drilling. Do really not think a fair number of the green Democrats were playing the environmental destruction angle? Or are you just up to a little pedantic trollery? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #73 July 20, 2007 Quote >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) Oh. I see. You're adding little caveats to your original points. It seems like you've been taking notes from Perfesser "real revenues have NOT gone up" Kallend. Quote >What do they have to do with what I have said? You said you missed the discussions where gas prices in comparison to other countries were a factor. There they are. As a factor in whether or not to drill in ANWR??? Which posts? Quote >No. How'd you get that? Oh, this game again! "I want my jet." You really should pay attention to what you write. Instead of resorting to stupid word games you could show where I claimed "that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #74 July 20, 2007 >nstead of resorting to stupid word games. . . You are either managing to confuse yourself brilliantly or are playing the Kallend "I didn't say ANYTHING that I said!" game. In any case, have a good weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #75 July 20, 2007 Quote Quote >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) Oh. I see. You're adding little caveats to your original points. It seems like you've been taking notes from Perfesser "real revenues have NOT gone up" Kallend. That's because Federal tax revenues, after correction for inflation and population growth, have gone down since Bush was sworn in, Jan 2001.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,132 #57 July 18, 2007 >you can make a chart that says co2 makes up 99% of the green house gases . . . CO2 doesn't make up 99% of the greenhouse gases. In terms of overall effect it makes up about 10-26% of the overall greenhouse effect, depending on what other gases are around. In stormy areas (lots of water vapor) CO2 contributes about 10%; in arid areas it's closer to 26%. Now, in the upper atmosphere (which is quite dry) the combination of CO2, methane, NOx and particulates make up 90+% of the total greenhouse effect, but I assume that's not what you're talking about >adding that number to the graph would would then change co2 to 3% of > the greenhouse gases. does this clear up the point i was trying to make. Not really. CO2 contributes way more than 3% of the total blocking of re-radiation of infrared. I can't think of any way to arrange the numbers to make that percentage valid. Now, if you're talking about overall increase (what's called forcing) then you might be able to pull out a 3% number somehow. CO2 contributes about 1.4 watts per square meter, which is where most of the warming is coming from. Methane is .5, NOx is .15 w/m^2. Perhaps you are thinking of the total forcing, which is 1.6 to 2.4 w/m^2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #58 July 18, 2007 wasn't really referring to greenhouse effect in those numbers i was referring to gas in volume ie ppm and if you take and break down the parts, co2 accounts for roughly 3%light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #59 July 18, 2007 > i was referring to gas in volume ie ppm and if you take and break >down the parts, co2 accounts for roughly 3% CO2 accounts for roughly .04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is around 78%, oxygen is 21%, argon 1%, methane 0.0002%, water vapor 0-3%. (Usually close to zero.) I'm not sure where that 3% comes from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #60 July 20, 2007 Quote from Lee Terry (R-Neb) in a speech yesterday: ---------------- Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that. Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. ------------------ Is anyone else worried (from either side of the debate) that our leaders know so little about science? Or are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #61 July 20, 2007 nitrogen oxygen and argon are not green house gases though. these are water vapor 95% carbon dioxide 3% methane 0.36% nitrous oxide 0.95% misc gases(cfc ect) 0.072%light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #62 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote from Lee Terry (R-Neb) in a speech yesterday: ---------------- Now, what a lot of people don't know when we talk about global warming or the CO2 emissions, that is the gas that is depleting our ozone, the vast majority of that is created naturally, not by humans. Yes, human activity that I am going to talk about in a minute does contribute to that. Now, as I understand, the major contributor and the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions is livestock. ------------------ Is anyone else worried (from either side of the debate) that our leaders know so little about science? Or are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? He's a Nebraska Republican, what do expect? Einstein?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #63 July 20, 2007 QuoteOr are some people just happy to have another guy on their side, even if they don't know what the hell they are talking about? You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #64 July 20, 2007 >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? You might want to re-check your sources on that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #65 July 20, 2007 Quote >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. Oh really???I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Quote But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #66 July 20, 2007 Quote Quote >You mean like all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental >destruction if we allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge ? I didn't see anyone predict "vast" environmental destruction. There will certainly be some destruction; there is in any oil drilling area. The argument seems to be over whether or not the environmental damage we will see is worth draining our last big reserve while our gas prices are among the cheapest on the planet. Oh really???I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Quote But in any case - are you claiming they have been proven wrong, since we drilled in ANWR and there was no environmental damage? There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Can you give cites for predictions, by Democrats, of "vast" environmental damage?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #67 July 20, 2007 >I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in >comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Not the deciding factor, one factor. It certainly puts lie to the claims that we have crippling unreasonable gas prices. BTW if you missed those discussions here are a few: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=420963;search_string=ANWR;#420963 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1537397;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC >There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Fair enough. So now you are claiming that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #68 July 20, 2007 Quote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #69 July 20, 2007 Quote>I must have missed those ANWR discussions, where our gas prices in >comparison to other countries was the deciding factor. Not the deciding factor, one factor. Really? Who was pushing that point? Quote It certainly puts lie to the claims that we have crippling unreasonable gas prices.Does this have anything to do with what I said? QuoteBTW if you missed those discussions here are a few: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=420963;search_string=ANWR;#420963 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1537397;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASCNice reads. What do they have to do with what I have said? Quote>There's a vast difference between vast environmental damage and NO environmental damage. Fair enough. So now you are claiming that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage? No. How'd you get that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #70 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Does that count as "all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #71 July 20, 2007 >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) >What do they have to do with what I have said? You said you missed the discussions where gas prices in comparison to other countries were a factor. There they are. >No. How'd you get that? Oh, this game again! "I want my jet." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #72 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote"If this language is allowed to stand, one of our nation's most pristine wildlife areas will be lost," Cantwell, a Democrat, said as she outlined plans by her party and its allies to defeat language offered by Alaska Republican Ted Stevens to open ANWR. Does that count as "all those Democrats who predicted vast environmental destruction" I'm pretty sure these guys are Dems. http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp You asked for cites. I produced one, from one of the more vocal opponents of drilling. Do really not think a fair number of the green Democrats were playing the environmental destruction angle? Or are you just up to a little pedantic trollery? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #73 July 20, 2007 Quote >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) Oh. I see. You're adding little caveats to your original points. It seems like you've been taking notes from Perfesser "real revenues have NOT gone up" Kallend. Quote >What do they have to do with what I have said? You said you missed the discussions where gas prices in comparison to other countries were a factor. There they are. As a factor in whether or not to drill in ANWR??? Which posts? Quote >No. How'd you get that? Oh, this game again! "I want my jet." You really should pay attention to what you write. Instead of resorting to stupid word games you could show where I claimed "that we did in fact drill in ANWR and there was only minimal environmental damage" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #74 July 20, 2007 >nstead of resorting to stupid word games. . . You are either managing to confuse yourself brilliantly or are playing the Kallend "I didn't say ANYTHING that I said!" game. In any case, have a good weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #75 July 20, 2007 Quote Quote >Who was pushing that point? No one was pushing the point that gas prices were the deciding factor. I was pointing out that we have some of the lowest prices on the planet, to counter people claiming that we had to do whatever we could to lower prices. (That was a point being pushed by Bush, among many others.) Oh. I see. You're adding little caveats to your original points. It seems like you've been taking notes from Perfesser "real revenues have NOT gone up" Kallend. That's because Federal tax revenues, after correction for inflation and population growth, have gone down since Bush was sworn in, Jan 2001.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
