Tuesday, December 6, 2011


The United states of America has the largest available natural gas, oil and coal resources combined in the entire world.

Yeah, Joe, you just keep making up those absurd things and don't bother to document them.

OK...here's the documentation: Institute for Energy Research.

I've been saying it for years, and have been royally castigated by very stupid liberals every time I've said it.

And guess what! Even with documentation from IER, a not-for-proft organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets, you liberals will still say I'm nuts and the source is not dependable.

That won't make it true, but you will say it anyway.

The United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves of oil — or more than the entire world has used in 150 years. That’s enough to fuel the United States for the next 250 years. Add natural gas and coal resources to that and we’re good to go for all the foreseeable future. (Source)

Why, then, are we so dependent on foreign oil and other energy sources?

Well, whether deliberately or otherwise, we have a backward energy policy, based far more on how to get elected than on how to solve our energy problems.

President BO (the child president) told us that solving our energy problem is the first thing on his mind when he wakes up in the morning (as are: our children's education; the economy; creating new jobs and getting re-elected...a really big bunch of first things to think about).

So, what in the world is WRONG with him?

Why can't he see that going after those resources in our very own country would: solve our energy needs within 5 years; create tens of thousands of good paying jobs; increase our respect in the world; go a really long way toward reducing our national debt, reducing our budget deficit and reducing the price of gas at the pump...thus ADDING to the economy?

Either he is stupid, misinformed or deliberately refusing to move toward the solution.

Either way, it is sad.

I would ask: Why not use the energy resources we have to hold us until we can develop real, viable alternatives...something other than those horridly ugly windmill fields (that will kill countless thousands of birds, by the way and which no lawmaker wants in his back yard), 

or those delicate, equally ugly fields of solar panels, just waiting for the next good hurricane and so utterly devastating to the environment?

Come on people!

We don't have the alternatives yet!


We just plain and simple don't have them!

For instance, today's crop of battery operated cars are an absolute joke!

They will come!

They WILL!

( I personally think the solution is the use of hydrogen for fuel, which exhausts only water when it is used in vehicles.)

But they are not here yet! And if we chose to suffer until they get here, we will never have them!

For the future of the country's sake, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren, let's get this economy back on track by making use of the abundant resources of natural gas, oil and coal that we have!



Lone Ranger said...

Now, there is a movement in California to shut down their last two nuclear reactors. That would cut the state's energy supply by 16%. That would result in more rolling blackouts, higher energy prices and more businesses leaving the state. Those two reactors produce twice as much energy as all the state's wind farms and solar farms combined. Liberals never worry about the consequences of their actions. You don't hear a peep from the left about the thousands upon thousands of raptors and bats that are killed by windmills.

Joe said...

LR: Right.

I have tried in vain to understand the thought processes of liberals, but I am convinced their minds are stranger than String Theory.

Ducky's here said...

Why, then, are we so dependent on foreign oil and other energy sources?


We are a net exporter of refined petroleum products so I'm going to call hyperbole on your assertion, Joe.

Ducky's here said...

Bad link on The institute for Energy Research?

Ducky's here said...

" According to the liberal watchdog group, Media Matters, since 1996, $110,000 of IER's funding has come from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a trust set up by private energy company Koch Industries. IER also received over $300,000 in funding from ExxonMobil,, but has not given to IER since 2007."


This sounds a little suspicious Joe. Maybe not objective.

I'd require further evidence.

Lone Ranger said...

Media Matters is not a watchdog group, it is an attack do group. They are constantly caught in lies. Only a liberal would give them any credibility at all.

Joe said...

Ducky: I WAS RIGHT!!!

You did EXACTLY what I said you would do!!!

You are so predictable that it would be boring if it were not so serious.

Media Matters is not a source of one iota of truth...never has been, is not now and never will be.

Only an idiot would use them as a source of anything.

If I said, "I'm a conservative, and roads are designed as paths from one place to another," you would call it a lie...just because it came from a conservative.

Way to go with the open mindedness thing!

Truth is, you don't even care about truth. All you want is to put forth your agenda...no matter what it takes.

Xavier Onassis said...

"Truth is, you don't even care about truth. All you want is to put forth your agenda...no matter what it takes."

You must be looking in a mirror because that's a perfect description of you and this blog.

"Media Matters is not a source of one iota of truth...never has been, is not now and never will be."

So you dispute their data on IER's funding? You saying that it's all a lie? Perhaps you can back that up with some actual facts?

Ducky's here said...

XO, this is the guy who took Glenn Beck as gospel in his previous posting.

sue hanes said...

Joe - 'those horribly ugly windmill fields'

I think those windmills are beautiful - Joe.

One day I was driving home from Indy on I 74 - and I passed a bunch of them that were moving slowly - and as I looked over at them I realized that the andante
con moto movement from Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was playing on my
cd and -

I thought to myself:

what a wonderful world

Joe said...

XO: Did you even LOOK at the link provided by LR?

Of course not.

You would not be the least bit interested in any facts that would indict Media Matters.

Fact: They constantly and deliberately say things that are not true. They do so consistantly enought to extablish a pattern and thus are suspect in ANYTHING they put forth.

But what they lie about fits your agenda, therefore you speak of it as true, whether it is or not.

(See LR's link for evidence of the above).

Ducky's here said...

sue hanes has it right.

A couple of wind turbines were put up near the local electric plant.
Coming up the hill on Main Street they appear and perspective makes them appear right on top of you. Quite a visual.

A turbine research institute is also starting locally so more may go up.

To say we aren't concerned about migration paths or bat deaths is the pure stinky cheese, Joe. But since you don't read anything that may be classed as even moderate, how would you know?

Craig said...

Joe, Here is another source. IER is an oil/coal funded organization and it's function is to advance their interests. Your preemptive, "liberals will still say I'm nuts and the source is not dependable" doesn't change the fact that they aren't dependable. Drill, baby, drill, less regulation and climate change denial is their mission.

The aesthetics of wind and solar farms are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. You'll notice there isn't a toxic plume rising from either in your pictures. Maybe a manly refinery is more pleasing to you. Here are some photos of the Flint Hills Refinery(As long as I can remember, us locals have called it Koch refinery. Yeah, it's theirs.), about 30 miles from my house. Bonus Canadian tar sands photos.

The claim that there are 1.4T barrels of recoverable reserves of oil, isn't quite true. Most of that oil, actually kerogen, is in shale. It's been hyped as the solution to our energy problems for the last 50 years. No one has been able to extract it in a way that is economically viable. Many have tried including Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and AMSO .

Let's say they finally find a way. The Bureau of Land Management, requested by Congress, did an impact study. Some things the people of Colorado and Utah can look forward to,

commercial oil shale industry will supplant nearly all other uses of the land, including recreation, ranching, agriculture, and all other oil and gas development. While oil shale development will bring thousands of new jobs, this displacement of traditional land uses is likely to cost thousands of jobs in existing industries like recreation. Wildlife will assuredly lose habitat... Plants will lose habitat and ... Fish will suffer from any drop in water quality or flow volumes throughout the region's waterways. Depending on how much water the extraction process requires, the industry may need to buy up agricultural water rights, putting an end to irrigated farming in some areas. Water quality is likely to be degraded.

Not to mention the tons more CO2 dumped in to the atmosphere, but that one's easy. Just deny it's a problem.

Craig said...

You don't hear a peep from the left about the thousands upon thousands of raptors and bats that are killed by windmills.

The highest figure I found was a projected 300,000 birds killed each year by windmills.

Glass Windows
Bird Deaths a year: 900+ million

Automobiles / Trucks
Bird Deaths a year: 50 to 100 Million

Electric Transmission Line Collisions
Bird Deaths a year: up to 174 million

Bird Deaths a year: 67 million

Communication Towers
Bird Deaths a year: 4 to 10 million

Oil and Gas Extraction
Bird Deaths a year: 1 to 2 million

Raptor Deaths a year: more than 1,000

Bird Deaths a year: 100 + million


Craig said...

Sorry, Joe. My photo link failed. Here's a beauty

Joe said...

Ducky: If they are so beautiful, how come congress persons and senators keep refusing to let them be built in THEIR "back yards"?

Truth is, they're ugly as home-made sin and ruin natural landscapes.

You'd think the environmental wackos would object...but that would not fit their liberal agenda.

Xavier Onassis said...

"If they are so beautiful, how come congress persons and senators keep refusing to let them be built in THEIR "back yards"?"

Which 'congress persons', which 'senators', which windmills or energy bills in which states?

You toss out a bunch of assertions like so much manure and you provide absolutely no FACTS to back them up.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true.


Joe said...

XO: Get off your side high-horse! If you can disprove something I said, have at it!

The late Ted Kennedy typified the congress' attitude. When it was planned to put up some windmill in "his back yard," he hit the ever-lovin'-blue-eyed- roof!

'Course he's dead, and they could put 'em up there now.

Only they won't.

They're too ugly...the windmills, not the congresspersons.

On second thought.

Ducky's here said...

Joe we've been over the reason Cape Wind hasn't started and it is strictly economic, if you recall.

The developer wants state and federal subsidies while charging excessive rates. A rip off that the people of Dukes county aren't going to stand for.

If you do a little research you'll find that Maine has had some success with turbines. Massachusetts is doing quite a bit installing them in urban areas. There have been no objections to these installations.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - So you are taking one instance of Ted Kennedy advocating for his Martha's Vinyards constituents and extrapolating that to assume that all "...congress persons and senators keep refusing to let them be built in THEIR "back yards..."?

That's lame.

You also said "If you can disprove something I said, have at it!"

You haven't provided any actual facts that can be proven OR disproven. You are just spewing crap.

Allow me to provide you with an analogy.

1: One time, when I went hiking in the woods, I saw a hobbit riding a unicorn.

2: Last July, I had a squirrel's tail growing out of my back, but it's gone now.

3: On the way home last night I saw a burning bush that told me to comment on your blog.

As you said, "If you can disprove something I said, have at it!"

Make me a liar Jo Joe! Disprove any of my 3 statements?

All 3 of my above statements have as much evidence behind them as the ridiculous crap that you spew on this blog.

Saying something doesn't make it true.

Quoting people and citing sources that are as delusional as you do not grant you any credibility.

You live in a fantasy world Jo Joe.

You wouldn't be able to recognize an actual fact if it walked up and introduced itself.

Joe said...

XO: Who do you think you are "requiring" anything of me at all?

You can't require anything of me...period.

I do nothing to try to please you, have no interest in pleasing you and do not accept your "authority" over me in any way.

I don't care one whit whether or not you believe anything I write.

And I don't care whether your tail is that of a squirrel or satan, himself.

You are free to write whatever you want, with or without "proof," and so am I.

I will continue to write what I want on my blog and your may read it or not, comment or not, and I don't care.

You are basically meaningless to me, as is your conjoined twin, Ducky.

Lone Ranger said...

Obama just threatened the Republicans with dire (unstated) consequences if they try to attach legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to New Orleans to the payroll tax holiday extension. Here is the most shovel-ready project Obama has ever encountered. It would provide thousands of jobs. It would give us a new source of energy. And, it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a single nickle. But he opposes it. No reason stated. Just another irrational, anti-growth policy from the Boy King.

Joe said...

LR: President BO (the child president) is quite happy to keep unemployment as high as possible.

It is a tactic of despots to keep the people in a state of unrest until he/she can step in and "fix" the problem, assuming, of course, that they will agree to let him be "president for life."

Joe said...

It is inconceivable to me that anyone would think the view of those beautiful mountains is enhanced by those stupid windmills.

It is equally untenable that anyone thinks those photovoltaic cells in that field are nice looking.

Oil pumps, on the other hand, once the dereck is taken down are small by comparison and sometimes are not even noticiple in the landscape.

But there is absolutely no accounting for the "tastes" of liberals.

Scotty said...

It is inconceivable to me that anyone would think the view of those beautiful mountains is enhanced by those stupid windmills.

Maybe it's the beauty of the flames they give off when the over heated gear oil, used to lubricate the gears, catches on fire!

Lone Ranger said...

You would think that in California, where they disguise cell phone towers as trees, they could easily disguise those oil pumps.

Joe said...

Scotty: WOW! Fields of giant candles!