Biden’s Incredible Transition

[brenthutch 384]

https://the-pipeline.org/bidens-bottomless-energy-foolishness/
 

Key takeaways:

*Oil production and refining margins are at or slightly below average for all American manufacturing industries (so much for that leftie talking point)

*Biden’s grasp of the oil and gas industry is as simplistic and confused as every other aspect of his doddering administration. 

*Biden said he’d halt further oil and gas production on public land, while encouraging Wall Street to cut off capital to the industry.

*Every government investigation of high gas prices since the 1970s has failed to find any evidence of price fixing or collusion in the oil industry, because there isn’t any. 
 

*The dramatic revolution in domestic oil and gas production that began about 15 years ago falsified two of liberalism’s most persistent clichés—that we had reached “peak oil,” and that the U.S. couldn’t “drill our way” to energy independence.

Have a great Juneteenth weekend 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,257]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

*Biden’s grasp of the oil and gas industry is as simplistic and confused as every other aspect of his doddering administration. 

Well sure, that sounds fair and balanced.

[brenthutch 384]

More good stuff 

https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2022/06/17/the-democrats-capricious-energy-policy-has-been-a-disaster-n2608886

“Energy policy can't be capriciously implemented and then abandoned every time the Democrats' poll numbers flail. This is just a little taste of the Green New Deal. There is no sentient being that could accept the notion that Democrats are the party that is in favor of abundant fossil fuels. Hopefully, the price -- even in small measure -- for their green policies is so politically severe that they will moderate. Because we all have unattainable dreams.”

 

[brenthutch 384]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

Well sure, that sounds fair and balanced.

Inflation, crime, fentanyl overdose, border, economy….I’d say it’s fair, balanced and more importantly, accurate.

Edited June 18, 2022 by brenthutch

[kallend 1,635]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

Well sure, that sounds fair and balanced.

It would be very nice (although unlikely) if Trump would transition from being a lying, egotistical, arrogant  con-man to being a decent human being.

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

16 minutes ago, kallend said:

It would be very nice (although unlikely) if Trump would transition from being a lying, egotistical, arrogant  con-man to being a decent human being.

Hi John,

Me thinks you ask too much.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

It would be very nice (although unlikely) if Trump would transition from being a lying, egotistical, arrogant  con-man to being a decent human being.

I’d settle for fertilizer.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

More good stuff 

https://townhall.com/columnists/davidharsanyi/2022/06/17/the-democrats-capricious-energy-policy-has-been-a-disaster-n2608886

“Energy policy can't be capriciously implemented and then abandoned every time the Democrats' poll numbers flail. This is just a little taste of the Green New Deal. There is no sentient being that could accept the notion that Democrats are the party that is in favor of abundant fossil fuels. Hopefully, the price -- even in small measure -- for their green policies is so politically severe that they will moderate. Because we all have unattainable dreams.”

 

You simply do not believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that AGW is true. To me you are no different from all who believe that the that the 2020 election was stolen and that the Earth is flat is true. There really isn't anything you can be told that will change your view. You're getting no converts here so why not move on?

Edited June 19, 2022 by JoeWeber

[brenthutch 384]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You simply do not believe the overwhelming scientific evidence that AGW is true. T

What ‘evidence’?  Are you taking about the unprecedented number of floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires?  Or how the Arctic is ice free, how Glacier National park has no glaciers?  Snow cap gone on Mt. Kilimanjaro? Polar bear extinction?  Maldives and Bangladesh under water? Failed predictions do not constitute overwhelming scientific evidence. To paraphrase Richard Feynman,

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, it does matter if it supports a political agenda, it doesn’t matter if 97% of your palls agree with you, it doesn’t matter if it fulfills a deep psychological need, if it doesn't agree with observation it’s wrong.”

The only thing heating up is the rhetoric. 

 

 

[olofscience 422]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Failed predictions do not constitute overwhelming scientific evidence

You mean the failed predictions and arguments you keep making up in your head?

And funny you talk about scientific evidence. You can barely read...especially your OWN links.

[wmw999 2,126]

By taking the most extreme lay characterizations of predictions and anointing them as the goalposts, you’re making your position clear. Kind of like how everything that happened under every Republican was good, and everything that happened under every Democrat bad. Or, if it’s incontrovertible (e.g. 9/11 happened during the Bush 2 presidency), then it was the predecessor’s fault.

You know that, you just don’t give a shit, and don’t have enough respect for others’ intelligence to use them for anything other than an audience for your comedy

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,915]

21 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You know that, you just don’t give a shit, and don’t have enough respect for others’ intelligence to use them for anything other than an audience for your comedy

There seems to be a willing audience here who must be enjoying the interactive performance. I don't get it, but there it is.

Edited June 19, 2022 by gowlerk

[brenthutch 384]

30 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You mean the failed predictions and arguments you keep making up in your head?

And funny you talk about scientific evidence. You can barely read...especially your OWN links.

Maybe you can provide some evidence of unprecedented disaster at the hands of AGW.  If the evidence is “overwhelming” it should be easy to find.

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Maybe you can provide some evidence of unprecedented disaster at the hands of AGW.  If the evidence is “overwhelming” it should be easy to find.

Oh look, another strawman.

I'll repeat: you don't have to come here to argue against the 'libs' in your mind. There are institutions for that.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What ‘evidence’?  Are you taking about the unprecedented number of floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires?  Or how the Arctic is ice free, how Glacier National park has no glaciers?  Snow cap gone on Mt. Kilimanjaro? Polar bear extinction?  Maldives and Bangladesh under water? Failed predictions do not constitute overwhelming scientific evidence. To paraphrase Richard Feynman,

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, it does matter if it supports a political agenda, it doesn’t matter if 97% of your palls agree with you, it doesn’t matter if it fulfills a deep psychological need, if it doesn't agree with observation it’s wrong.”

The only thing heating up is the rhetoric. 

 

 

To directly quote Carl Sagan: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

At 11:40pm on April 14th 1912, the ship Titanic struck an iceberg.

At that moment, the ship was doomed. It was going to sink and nothing anyone could do would have stopped that from happening.

It didn't actually founder (go under) until around 2:15am on the 15th.

During that time, there was a hell of an argument over whether or not the ship would sink, if the lifeboats should be loaded & launched, in general 'what the hell should we do?'

I don't personally believe that 'we are doomed'.

But I also believe that we will face a hell of a disaster if we do nothing.

Note: the "we" is an 'editorial we'. The more severe effects of AGW aren't going to come until well after I'm dead and gone.

Anyone who pays actual attention to what the scientists and experts REALLY SAY about it knows this.

Right now we're seeing (metaphorically) the water rising in the lower decks. Not a big problem, right?
Not yet, anyway.

[JoeWeber 2,315]

4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

At 11:40pm on April 14th 1912, the ship Titanic struck an iceberg.

At that moment, the ship was doomed. It was going to sink and nothing anyone could do would have stopped that from happening.

It didn't actually founder (go under) until around 2:15am on the 15th.

During that time, there was a hell of an argument over whether or not the ship would sink, if the lifeboats should be loaded & launched, in general 'what the hell should we do?'

I don't personally believe that 'we are doomed'.

But I also believe that we will face a hell of a disaster if we do nothing.

Note: the "we" is an 'editorial we'. The more severe effects of AGW aren't going to come until well after I'm dead and gone.

Anyone who pays actual attention to what the scientists and experts REALLY SAY about it knows this.

Right now we're seeing (metaphorically) the water rising in the lower decks. Not a big problem, right?
Not yet, anyway.

Well, there it is, of course. We'll all be long gone when unhappily ever after hits. Unfortunately some of us think peeing in the pool just before we climb out is poor form even if it would save the 25 cent fee for the public toilet. Others, too many others, simply don't care.

[brenthutch 384]

45 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Oh look, another strawman.

 

Sooo….you’ve got nothing….got it.

[olofscience 422]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sooo….you’ve got nothing….got it.

Arguing with yourself again?

[brenthutch 384]

No I am asking YOU a simple question.  Show me the “overwhelming scientific evidence” of catastrophic man made global warming.  It’s funny how CAGW is real, it is devastating and yet it is invisible 

 

[JoeWeber 2,315]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No I am asking YOU a simple question.  Show me the “overwhelming scientific evidence” of catastrophic man made global warming.  It’s funny how CAGW is real, it is devastating and yet it is invisible 

 

Remember, it’s not dementia until you believe it too.

[Bigfalls 110]

19 hours ago, kallend said:

It would be very nice (although unlikely) if Trump would transition from being a lying, egotistical, arrogant  con-man to being a decent human being.

I think that statements belongs in the joke of the day thread.

[olofscience 422]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No I am asking YOU a simple question.  Show me the “overwhelming scientific evidence” of catastrophic man made global warming.  It’s funny how CAGW is real, it is devastating and yet it is invisible 

 

Um, no you haven't. Questions usually end with a question mark (?).

And you're imagining that I'm saying all that stuff, but it's all in your mind.

[brenthutch 384]

9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Um, no you haven't. Questions usually end with a question mark (?).

And you're imagining that I'm saying all that stuff, but it's all in your mind.

OK there Captain Pedantic, try this on for size.

Where is the “overwhelming scientific evidence” for catastrophic man made global warming?  Or, do you agree with me that there is no such evidence?

[olofscience 422]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Where is the “overwhelming scientific evidence” for catastrophic man made global warming?  Or, do you agree with me that there is no such evidence?

Nice loaded question.

You'll then choose your own definition of catastrophic, apply your arbitrary criteria to any answer, then declare yourself the winner of the argument, which you do every day in your mind.

You can't really debate honestly, can you?

 

(rhetorical question: you can't. Because without cheating you really have no chance)

Edited June 19, 2022 by olofscience