Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

World Can’t Afford Impacts Of Destructive Tar Oil

March 3, 2014

To the Reader’s Forum: The production of tar sands oil is extremely degrading to the environment and should be prohibited world wide....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-04-14 10:28 PM

Democrats on TV the last few days have complained that Obama doesn't have a lot of good options. DUH! The fact that Obama has few good options is a direct result of having a pathetic foreign policy for the last five years. The big difference between Nixon/Kissinger and Obama/Clinton-Kerry is that the Nixon team was several moves ahead of the rest of the world while Obama leads from behind. If we were a wealthy country, we could better afford to lend financial aid to Ukraine without further weakening the dollar. We would be able to supply Europe with enough oil and LNG to offset any Russian restrictions. Obama's ridiculous spending and his marching in lockstep with the environmental extremists have prevented those options. Obama's unilateral withdrawal of the Eastern European missile shield, Iran and Syria policies, allowing Iraq and Afghanistan to worsen under his watch and gutting our military all have emboldened Putin.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 3:14 PM

yes indeed, Credence. i heard that report on some radio program yesterday. their silence is deafening.

(sorry i don't use caps a lot - they all melted.)

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 2:53 PM

Russia’s invasion of Crimea is a tipping point event that will further spur the American oil boom. The European Union (EU) and United States in 2008 threatened to slap economic sanctions on Russia for invading Georgia. But after a while the criticism faded and threats of sanctions were quietly dropped, because the EU is almost entirely reliant on Russia for energy supplies.

A similar situation is unfolding today as the EU and U.S. are again making empty threats that they will stop exports of Russian oil and gas as punishment for invading the Ukraine. But due to the latest humiliation by the Russians, a consensus is emerging that will demand the United States and its North American partners “drill, baby, drill” for national security.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 2:49 PM

Here's your Global Warming Girls: Do scientific papers ever seem like unreadable gibberish to you? Well, sometimes they really are. Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.

The fake papers are in the fields of computer science and math and have titles such as “Application and Research of Smalltalk Harnessing Based on Game-Theoretic Symmetries”; “An Evaluation of E-Business with Fin”; and “Simulating Flip-Flop Gates Using Peer-to-Peer Methodologies.” The authors of those papers did not respond to requests for comment.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 1:02 PM

utherjorge- the petition I was referring to was conducted by the Weather Channel in 2008 and had reached 35,000 signatures at the time Obama took office. Awareness of this petition and its growing influence (8,000 of the scientists had Ph.D.'s) was a stick in the eye to the "climate change" crowd. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was the reason the Obama administration loaned billions to GE and GE through its NBC subsidiary then bought the Weather Channel and squelched talk of the petition. Any long-time viewer of the Weather Channel will recall that The Weather Channel has been a shill for the "climate change" crowd ever since.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 12:33 PM

Duckster-- When we control the pipeline" which we would" If necessary we could force Canada to sell the oil to us or countries friendly to us. Once built the line will need monitors, folks manning pump stations, etc, all along the route which are jobs, folks at the end manning refineries, shipping ports, etc and I am sure Canada won't get a free ride for their oil traversing our country.

threestrikes--- no problem, for a minute there you had me confused though. LOL

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 11:49 AM

even if climate change and the mis nomer of :global warming" is a hoax (which is is not)... a pipe line going from canada to the Gulf .. then (the oil) of to other countries is not going to help us much... just saying

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 11:21 AM

I apologize, sonoma.

I meant Pfenixrookery. please forgive my mistake.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 11:20 AM

sonoma says "Try looking at sources other than Fox news occasionally." been there, done that, sonoma. for example, I've looked at Al Gore's folly, Michael Moore's junk, 911 conspiracies, msnbc misinformation, etc. time and space constrains me to continue, or to waste my time looking at biased liberal left-wing media programs.

no thanks, think I'll stick to Fox news.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 10:20 AM

I wonder what the enviros will have to say once they realize we are starting to develop our own tar sands in the west.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 8:49 AM

******* ***********

***********theguardian****/environment/2014/jan/02/antarctic-ship-stranding-delights-climate-change-sceptics Evidence. Try looking at sources other than Fox News occasionally.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-04-14 8:49 AM

The real scary thing is that Obama hasn't really started to pay back his environmental friends for their votes. Look for the Global warming issue and related actions to start soon.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 6:46 PM

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 1:52 PM

You do know don't you that Al Gore is laughing at everyone of you,all the way to the bank.His carbon footprint is 1000 times what ours is,but thats ok he's a multi millionaire now thanks to you koolade drinking believers.

13 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 1:48 PM

All you global warming crazies,please site some scientific facts to support your argument.Not extreme weather that happens.everytime there is a big storm you claim global warming,But you refuse to acknowlege that there were worst storms in the 50's and 60's than there has been this decade.There was the dust bowl in the 30's,more powerful hurricanes and typoons in the 60's.You seem to think you can scream global warming everytime there's a storm but if we site the cold winter you say you can't use that as evidence.

13 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 1:21 PM

Even if there were no such thing as global warming, the point is that these tar sands cause ENORMOUS damage to the environment above and beyond Co2. And BTW, if you haven't noticed, Canada has made a tremendous swing to the right lately. Steven Harper is totally as conservative as George Bush was.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 1:21 PM

Even if there were no such thing as global warming, the point is that these tar sands cause ENORMOUS damage to the environment above and beyond Co2. And BTW, if you haven't noticed, Canada has made a tremendous swing to the right lately. Steven Harper is totally as conservative as George Bush was.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 12:43 PM

"The world is becoming an ever more dangerous place, with more humans, less habitable land and more conflict, as a result of climate change." That's going a little overboard - the "Climate Change" does not cause the world to be a more dangerous place, nor does it cause this conflict you talk about. You might want to have a talk with your Mommy about what causes "more humans," because that isn't caused by climate change either - unless you figure in this extremely cold winter weather and staying under the covers longer, with nothing good on TV at that hour...

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 12:41 PM

After a few bad winters back in the mid to late 1970s, scientists were predicting a new ice age. It was all over the news. So what happened? Why these people are looked up to like "gods" is beyond me. The Weather Channel constantly preaches global warming and they can't even predict the next month's pattern correctly (e.g. last March was supposed to be "warmer than average" in our area), and often they are 5 degrees off on the daily highs and lows. (Local guys are much better). The world is not going to flood again. We have God's word on that. But global warming is making Al Gore and the rest a lot of money. While they continue making their big "carbon footprints."

12 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 12:34 PM

I am surprised that PJ would allow children to make comments on an adult subject. Snottynose definately is.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 11:40 AM

Climate change is a cyclic event but anyone who can’t believe that 7 billion humans and the recourses needed to support that population doesn’t add to or accelerate that process has to be an idiot.

13 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 11:17 AM

Point taken, Sonoma, about Patrick Moore. But citing him as a co-founder of Greenpeace by anti-environmentalists to validate/enhance the position that "There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm" is disingenuous, at best.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 10:50 AM

Right, Mr. Jablonski, let's get rid of most crude oil sources and coal. Then let's see what happens with your windmills, solar panels and pixie dust no one can afford, businesses closing because they cannot afford the cost of energy and the taxes to subsidize windmills, solar panels and pixie dust, all culminating in the economy collapsing. We all want a clean environment and there are laws in place to that end. Did you ever think that one of the reasons you live the prosperous life that you live is because of inexpensive energy.(and some would argue it's not inexpensive).

10 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 10:20 AM

jhwinnyc--perhaps you too should do a bit of research on Mr. Moore. While not an original founder of the precursor to Greenpeace he was there when they voted to change their name. He was also president of Canada Greenpeace and in general a radical liberal anti everything. The fact he got tired of the lies and radical BS and opted to start working with folks wanting a sustainable planet just pizzed off the eco-nuts. Proves how they will turn on anyone seen as not radical enough. I still see him as a liberal dreamer but perhaps closer to reality than some.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-03-14 10:10 AM

Bravo Jablonski!! Well argued!! Always a bizarre reaction from the "right" when any sensible discussion re: environmental issues is broached--almost as if we live amongst humanoids, orcs, wraiths.. inoculated by the corporate mass media, devoid of any emotion, capacity for logic or individuality. Would that we find a cure for my wandering, brainwashed brethren that they may see that the promised land is not one that has been excavated,mined,fracked,irradiated,contaminated, desecrated.....

10 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web