In response to:

Report: Frickin’ Fracking Could Ruin Everything for Leftist Activists

bachcole Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 11:47 AM
What is to stop other countries from obtaining and/or developing this new fracking technology? Nothing. Is there some good reason, geologically speaking, why the interior of other continents aren't filled with shale gas and oil? No. The only exception that I can think of is Australia, which is probably older than the Carboniferous period. Also, Antarctica is way too much trouble at this time. So, we are left with the reality that many other countries will be obtaining gas and oil at greatly reduced rates. This means that the USA will probably not become a big exporter of gas and oil. It also means that the Islamic terrorism will be greatly minimized due to a lack of funding.
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 6:33 PM
"Is there some good reason, geologically speaking, why the interior of other continents aren't filled with shale gas and oil? No."

Stop talking as though you understand geology. You're talking out of your nether parts.

The locations of significant oil shales and tar sands are known. Canada has the vast majority of the world's tar sands. The United States has about 2/3 of the oil known to exist in shale deposits; much of the rest is in Brazil. A few deposits exist in Zaire, Russia, and relatively small amounts in other places. No, the rest of the world will not be obtaining gas and oil cheaply from other sources.
bachcole Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 7:26 PM
inkling_revival, I appreciate the information, and I ask that you drop dead, or learn to be less rude.
bachcole Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 7:32 PM
inkling_revival, I appreciate the information.

These are proven reserves, I assume, that you are talking about. Again, the "proven reserves" are always changing and not a very good marker. Someone, somewhere, will discover other shale deposits. This is constantly happening with regular ol' oil reserves. Just because some scientist hasn't discovered something does not mean that it doesn't exist. I don't depend upon or wait upon some scientist to discover something before I surmise that it might exist. And what is so great about North America that we have the only extensive reserves of shale oil. It couldn't be that North America is crawling with scientists and geologists and oil and gas companies, could it?
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 9:06 PM
Granted that new things are being learned about the earth all the time, it is possible that oil might be found in locations not previously expected. However, geological knowledge of the planet is pretty extensive. Your notion that we know about US oil shale because there are oil companies in the US is too funny for words - how do you suppose we found out about oil under the sands of Saudi Arabia, hmm?

And, no, what we're talking about is not "proven reserves." Not a single drop of shale oil is included in "proven reserves."

You continue to demonstrate that you know next to nothing about the subject. Gripe about my "rudeness" all you like -- you're the idiot pretending to know stuff when you're stone cold ignorant. I'm just telling truth.
bachcole Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 9:44 PM
Your moral elevation is beneath me. Morality is much more important than worldly knowledge. Some day, I guarantee, you will realize this. I used to be just like you, and how I regret it.
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 10:49 PM
Telling you that you're being acting like a fool is immoral, somehow?

Please let me assure you, pretending to understand things that you do not understand is neither moral, nor superior, nor helpful to anyone, least of all yourself. And there's nothing wrong with me saying so.

But thanks for reminding me that reproving fools is seldom helpful.

Pr 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Pr 9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you...
sjp1 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 10:37 PM
It is not moral to abuse to resources of the earth. It is moral to use them reasonably and at a rate that will sustain humanity, and other life. It is immoral to corrupt and poison water that people depend upon to drink. Did you not know this or does the word "morality" mean something completely different to you?
bachcole Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 11:51 AM
This will also mean that green technologies will be given an opportunity to develop without a lot of hysteria based upon the lose of energy resources. (NO ONE likes pollution.) Eventually the left will discover that the Earth is not warming up (or the right will discover that it is warming up). There will always be a place for green technologies, but they will not develop in an atmosphere of lies and hysteria.
inkling_revival Wrote: Feb 16, 2013 6:37 PM
The only barrier that has ever existed to the development of "green" energy resources is the economics of those sources. Without government subsidies, they do not get much attention because for the most part, they're lousy ideas.

For instance, we've known about harvesting the wind since the 16th century, but wind power did not produce the Industrial Revolution. Why not? Because wind is intermittent and diffuse; you can't run a factory on wind power, because the wind doesn't blow all the time, and because it takes a lot of windmills to provide the same power as a modestly-sized coal boiler.

A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.

Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.

Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.

This latest discovery that...