website in with some of the other bullshit
but thanks for making note of keepthetruth ,,, viewers will be able to connect certain dots,,, keep up the great work
==================================================================================================================================================================================================
One of the best ways to get his important information out is by posting on Craigslist. It receives tons of hits each day. I would post in the "Rants and Raves" section of major cities. Be sure to use different titles for your posts and be creative. Then for the body, put links up to any page you want. Help me by posting links from this site. Get out there and help!
One of the best ways to get his important information out is by posting on Craigslist. It receives tons of hits each day. I would post in the "Rants and Raves" section of major cities. Be sure to use different titles for your posts and be creative. Then for the body, put links up to any page you want. Help me by posting links from this site. Get out there and help! ...
specialize in taking a couple carefully selected facts out of context, distort a few more selected facts, then create some “eye witness accounts” to jump to unfounded conclusions to justify their irrational hate.
To date no one has ”not prived one shred of evidence...” to prove otherwise.
”my aim is to get people to think by logic, and if just one person reads and makes the same connection, and connects the dots
i have succeeded ,,now if 1 million do the same ,, your anti-Semitism gig has been exposed, and your days will be numbered. and the truth will be
dealt with ,,,,you call me a revionist ,, nah,, i'm just a truth seeker, or lie exposer,,,, doesn't matter ,, problem is with you anti-Semities
you'll never admit your wrong ,, you always like to point the finger to others ,, vs looking at the real problem which is yourself..
again, i am not denying jews were killed in ww2 ,, i am denying 6 million were ,, and to this day you have not prived one shred of evidence...
and again i have every right to voice my opinion as you had every right ,, to do what you want,
my aim is to get people to think by logic, and if just one person reads and makes the same connection, and connects the dots
i have succeeded ,,now if 1 million do the same ,, your zionist gig has been exposed, and your days will be numbered. and the truth will be
dealt with ,,,,you call me a revionist ,, nah,, i'm just a truth seeker, or lie exposer,,,, doesn't matter ,, problem is with you zionists
you'll never admit your wrong ,, you always like to point the finger to others ,, vs looking at the real problem which is yourself..
I use to wonder if your viewpoint was the result of just being "under-informed" (i.e. ignorant). From the examples you regularly provide in your posts, your lack of education is obvious. Several people here have provided you with explanations and links to information in an effort to help rectify some of your limitations. After all, ignorance is simply the lack of information and once the information is provided the ignorance is elevated to a state of informed. Everyone is ignorant about certain things.
After reading dozens more of your about "the Zionists" being at the root of all the world's ills and how "the Jews" should have all been killed in the holocaust there is no longer a question in my mind about your ignorance. ... The good news is that you're not ignorant, the bad news is that you're stupid. ... And you can't fix stupid.
You have the right for your voice to be heard in much the same way I have the right to fart audibly. We both have a right to make those noises, but the noise we each make accomplishes nothing more than making some nonsensical sounds and causing a big stink.
Yup, you do have the right to "make noise" but to "be heard" you've got to actually say something that's someone else thinks is worth listening to. ... On the bright side, farting does relieve some pressure and may make you fell better, but on the down side it stinks and makes people laugh at you..
i recall krushev saying we will bury you ,, did it happen ?
do you really think ,,if i wanted to wipe out a nation ,, i would use nukes,,, please,,,, why contaminate an area where both islamists and jews live,,,, think about it,,, you watch to many movies, there are many other ways to destroy a nation ,,, al queda is doing it very well
how much have we spent since 911, this nation will crumble from within, as is evident as to what is happending now..
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).
Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.
A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)
59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”
Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb
Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?
(Part two of a three-part series on energy. Part three will appear Dec. 9)
“You lie!”
Rep. Joe Wilson during President Barack Obama’s healthcare 2009 speech
It’s one year after Barack Obama’s presidential victory and the winds of winter are beginning to gale. But don’t expect him to give Jimmy Carter-like sweater-clad chats from a chilly Oval Office.
Carter—the first president to warn us about Arab oil dependency three decades ago—is irrelevant to today’s Democrats. Rather than engage the nation about our critical dependence on Middle East oil, Obama and the Democrats have either ignored our energy problems, or worse—outright lied about them.
At the August 2008 Democratic National Convention Obama declared: “I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in renewable energy—an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”
Apparently Obama didn’t feel as “green” after winning the election. Just one day after he reiterated his commitment to renewable fuels in his State of the Union address in January 2009, we were told that the president’s budget cuts would force layoffs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Then there is Obama’s proclamation made on Oct. 15, 2008, during the presidential debates:
“In 10 years,” said candidate Obama, “we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela.”
It’s Called Peak Oil Mr. President
Such comments reveal a president that is either naïve about the energy situation, or is concerned with what is politically expedient. I can’t decide which.
What I do know is that what he says about oil is impossible. And I should know; I have been around petroleum all my life.
My dad was a geologist and oil trader when some of the biggest petro fields in world were struck in the 1950s and 1960s. He became the founder and publisher of OilWeek, a weekly petroleum magazine that counted the Saudi Oil Ministry among its subscribers and which is still published to this day in Calgary, Canada.
I studied geology during the first oil crisis of the 1970s. I graduated from the University of Calgary just as prices were cresting at $36 per barrel—more than 10 times higher than where they had been at the beginning of the decade.
For nearly 30 years I’ve been covering the oil markets and writing about energy. I am certainly not the smartest fellow in and around oil and gas. But I’ve had the good fortune to meet some of the men and women who are.
All would tell you the one truth that I know—that the United States of America is critically dependent on Arab oil.
It is called Peak Oil, and for the U.S. that happened 40 years ago.
Today the U.S. is pumping just 4.9 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d), or just a little more than half of the oil pumped in 1970. In fact the U.S. hasn’t pumped such little oil since the 1940s when Truman was President and our population was half of what it is today.
It is a situation that is going to only get worse as America’s Big Three crude producers—Texas, California and Alaska—are showing major declines.
Nearly half of our domestic crude production comes from these three states. Yet Texas’ oil output has fallen by 57 percent since 1981. California delivers just a little more than half of what it was pumping in 1985 and Alaska, once America’s oil oasis, has had production decline by a whopping two-thirds in the past 20 years.
Why the Bakken Formation is Baloney
One final note about domestic oil production—every time I write about it, I get comments about the Bakken formation.
The Bakken formation is in North Dakota and Montana. A lot of people wanting to sell newsletters and/or penny oil stocks have claimed incredible numbers for the region; some say it holds billions of barrels of oil, others say hundreds of billions of barrels of oil. One promoter even wrote that it had 2 trillion barrels of oil! If true that would mean there is more than twice as much oil below North Dakota rock than what remains in the rest of the world.
The best undertaking of the region was done by the Pittman/Price/LeFever study which estimated the volume of oil at 200 billion to 400 billion barrels. But here is the rub: because of the lower permeability and lower porosity of the formations, only 1 percent of this total is likely to be recovered at an effective cost. In other words we are talking at best 4 billion barrels—about enough oil to keep the U.S. going for five months.
The geology in North Dakota means that the oil is not pooled in elephant fields like Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia or Cantarell in Mexico.
Furthermore, meaningful production from the Bakken formation won’t take place for more than a decade. (That’s a similar timeline to bringing new Alaskan oil to market).
According to The Oil Drum, at some point we might have production of 225,000 barrels per day from the Bakken formation, “Which will have only a minor effect on U.S. production or imports.”
Digging Instead of Drilling
So while bragging up the Bakken may sell newsletters, it won’t save America from an impending oil crisis. And make no mistake, one is on the way.
We have some stopgap measures, including opening up new areas as well as horizontal drilling and offshore drilling. But oil magnate T. Boone Pickens estimates that if every possible new technology worked and if drilling restrictions were completely removed, the U.S. would still, “Only squeeze another 2 mb/d in added (annual) production.”
As it stands right now the U.S. is importing more than 13 million barrels of oil every day. That total is going to grow and within the next few years one-third of all our oil may come from the Middle East.
Meanwhile—as we discussed in Clean Energy is Pure Fantasy—alternative energy solutions are decades away from fruition.
However there is a real and reliable energy source just a few hundred miles north of Calgary. It is the oil sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan and it is already a major supplier of crude oil to the U.S.
Over the coming decade its importance will only increase and investors that take a stake in it will continue to earn big profits.
Canada is already the largest supplier of oil to the U.S., exporting 2 mb/d. About 1.3 mb/d come from oil sands. Yet in the next 10 years oil sands production will soar to 3.4 mb/d.
Given the rapid decline of Mexican and Alaskan oil fields over that span, Canada will become America’s energy lynchpin, providing it with 4.2 mb/d, or more oil than what the U.S. will be pumping for itself.
Invest in Suncor Energy
I first toured Suncor Energy (NYSE, SU, $36.30) nine years ago and as the editor of Outstanding Investments. I urged my subscribers to buy this stock in April 2001 for $12.69 per share (see Suncor price chart below).
But the story of Suncor dates back further than 2001 and will extend well beyond 2010.
It is Canada’s original oil sands developer, having produced the first barrel of crude oil from the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta in 1967.
Today Suncor is the world’s second largest producer of oil sands crude (after Syncrude Canada Ltd.) and is the only company to currently use both mining and in-situ resource technologies.
A fully integrated company, Suncor upgrades the oil from the oil sands to the level of conventional crude at its upstream facilities and then ships the crude to the company’s refineries east to Ontario and south to Colorado.
In August 2009, Suncor merged with Petro-Canada. The move made it Canada’s largest energy company and the fifth largest North American energy company based on market capitalization (the price of the stock times the number of shares trading, which in Suncor’s case is $57 billion).
Action to Take: Buy Suncor at market. The weakening U.S. dollar and supply constraints on oil will push crude prices higher. Suncor stock will continue to climb alongside rising petroleum prices.