21 3 mins 13 yrs

The Collapse of Two Currencies, both the British Pound, and the American Dollar can be easily turned around. As our two currencies race each other to the bottom there is a simple way to turn both around.

Black Gold, Texas Tea, OIL.

Both of our countries have lost their industrial base. We no longer manufacture anything. That is what has to be changed. One problem building factories is you have to power them. That means Oil and Coal.

Global Warming has been proven to be a hoax, the data was falsified and all policies based on the data, put plain and simple are bullshit and destructive. Not to mention that Green House Gas such as CO2 causing rising temperatures on the Earth violates the second law of thermal dynamics. Look it up. So let’s get back to reality.

Reality is Oil, Coal, Steel produced at home not bought from our enemies. British Petroleum is the number one company in the world when it comes to Off Shore Drilling. As the Brazilians just showed the world there is more Oil under the Ocean than we can burn in 1000s of years.

Oil onshore and off in the U.S. matched with Coal and natural gas is more than enough for the same amount of time. The jobs created and the money that would stay internal in both of our countries would not only save our economies, it would spark a second industrial revolution. While also starving funds to those that wish to kill us.

The next time some eco wacko or politician says we can’t drill or must cut green house gasses, ask them to show us the data why. Since it has been destroyed because it proved they were wrong, that will be some trick.

It is time to get back to work.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

21 thoughts on “The Collapse of Two Currencies

  1. Global Warming has been proven to be a hoax, the data was falsified and all policies based on the data, put plain and simple are bullshit and destructive.

    If only that was true. Unfortunately, the data for rising temperatures since around 1980 comes from many independent sources, including satelites, and is not disputed by any reputable scientist, including famous AGW sceptics such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.

    The cause or causes of the warming may still be legitimate grounds for debate, and the future trajectory of temperatures in response to rising CO2 emissions definitely is. But the fact that there has been warming cannot be credibly disputed.

  2. I concur with the post and would suggest that the UK government should start opening coal mines again.

    We have an estimated 1000 years of coal reserves under our feet, why not start by going back to town gas extracted from coal removing the dependency on soviet gas. then building clean power stations that can use the waste residue.

  3. poor Peter drank the coolaide and never came back to reality. 30,000 scientists have come out against AGW, the past decade has been one of the coldest and we are in a cooling trend.

    The Earths temperature is caused by the sun, sun spots, and the wobble and non consistancy in the earths orbit.

    Peter post the data that proves your point

    Hey Pete ya know if you put leeches on your legs you can cure gaute at least that’s the consensus

  4. The second law of thermal dynamics, a heated surface will always dissipate in the direction of what is cooler. So I ask you if the atmosphere was heating which direction would the heat go?

    Towards the Earth or towards space?

  5. Ranger be careful, your making sense. That can put you on the kook list with a lot on here…lol

  6. Troll

    Nothing to add to what I posted earlier. Maybe you didn’t read what I posted, but I couldn’t care less.

    Your last three comments are pure garbage.

  7. Peter you have nothing to add because there is nothing but proof that you are wrong. Your a sad case. I read your comment back it up with facts.

    You can’t science is factual data, something that the global warming crowd can’t produce and have been caught falsifying. You have neither the factual or moral highground.

  8. Troll

    I have posted many links on this subject, on the assumption that you and other Rightworlders might be interested in the scientific debate on this important subject. With this post and your subsequent childish comments you prove yet again that this is not the case. But of course for Rightworlders like you, doubt does not exist. In your kindergarten view of the world, everything is good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. So it’s a total waste of time arguing with you.

    For the final record, my point is that global warming is a fact, but there may be doubts about the mix of causes. And there may be doubt about future temperatures. But I’m repeating myself. If this simple message is too much for you, too bad. I will not be wasting any more time arguing with the wall.

  9. no you see Peter what you cant get over was you were lied to and you bought it hook line and sinker. The uncorrupted data for the last decade shows cooling not warming.

    Yes the Earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. The Vikings once farmed in a land that today is covered in ice. The Sahara was a garden of eden.

    The Global Warming Movement is a political movement based on politics and aimed at destroying the worlds industrial base. When the founder of greenpeace abandons his own orginization because it no longer followed the misssion statement but was about redistribution of wealth it should have spoke volumes to you.

    All the links you have posted in the past are connected with the corrupted data. Your statement that no competant scientist dissagrees with global warming is disproved by the e-mails of the pro GW scientists that discuss how to discredit them. If they don’t exist who do they have to discredit?

    I really do feel sorry for and people like you. You have been treated as use full tools by liars and cheats.

    The problem is they have been caught, and it is now time to put foolish things aside and get back to business.

    It has nothing to do with left or right the fact that you term it that way should tell you it’s political not factual. It is a matter of true or false.

    The AGW side was caught lying and destroying data. If the science was factual they would not have had to do either.

    Our economies are industrial not agricultural. There is no reason to not use our resources and every reason to use them.

  10. Peter

    You discuss this subject in a sober and clear fashion, and I very much hope that you continue to speak to it.

    Troll

    Even if most everything you say is true and that everything the GW guys have ever said is proved to be lies, it is still to our advantage to achieve vastly greater energy efficiency and to move rapidly to near zero emissions. I think that we can accomplish these things, and I want us to shoot for it. Drill baby drill yes, but superefficient energy technology will give us and the world a permanent advantage while an oil field, even a big one, only will give a temporary patch.

  11. yes it will phantom but for the next hundred years we still need oil and coal because that is what powers our country.

    I am all for solar, geothermal, nuclear, cold fusion, nuclear whatever we can convert too.

    However our standard of living and our security depend on us using our own oil and coal now. It will take decades to retool the country for alternate fuel if and when the can achieve an efficient one.

    in the mean time it has been proven that we do not need to suffer the economic collapse of our society for lies. As America we can invent and work our way out of anything if we use what our country has already been blessed with, but if we collapse further who is going to bring the planet further along the Afghanies?

  12. if we went to hydrogen cars and trucks which is pretty efficient already as an alternative fuel. Where is your local hydrogin station?

    How long will it take to build them? How long will it take to build the Hydrogyn production plants and delivery systems?

    These things take decades, I say good lets do it, but in the mean time why send trillions of dollars outside the country for fuel that we have here.

  13. We’re not that terribly apart then.

    i know someone who does business with GM, and has driven a hydrogen powered car.

    Many of our environmental, security and social problems can be solved by just two things – move rapidly in the direction of energy independence and ultraefficiency, and ending or recalibrating the assholish war on drugs, say by legalizing pot.

    Drill baby drill, superefficient technologies, and legalize pot. We’ll have clean air, defund mafias and terror gangs, and improve the balance of trade. There, that’s a good nights work.

  14. Grizzly Mama/Troll. I think you have perhaps misunderstood the second law of thermodynamics which is about entropic change, not radiation – which is, after all, only one form of heat transfer. What you seem to be suggesting, if I remember my physics A level correctly is the rule that heat generally cannot flow from a material at lower temperature to one at higher temperature.
    But the important caveat to the second law is that it can with the aid of work input (otherwise we wouldn’t have fridges) – which increases entropy – which is what the second law is really all about. I don’t think it helps your argument.

    As for this 30,000 – that is quite a leap on the now notorious ‘Inhofe list’ of 700 – which, not surprisingly, turned out to be, shall we say, not quite as robust a list as you would have hoped. Around 80% of those on that list had no refereed publication record on climate science whatsoever.
    I don’t know who these 30,000 are but I see from the list that 1/3rd of them are engineers – not scientists. Now I don’t know about you, but when I was at university, engineers were a rather different kettle of fish to scientists. So I am not sure you can legitimately count them as scientists.
    In fact slightly more than 10%, some 3804, are in the category of "Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment". Of them some 960 are in subjects relevant to the area of climate study.
    What we are not told is what level of achievement they have. Working on the basis that the distribution of degrees is likely to be in proportion to the site as a whole, that means 407 have a basic BSc or equivalent.
    That leaves 553 with either a Masters or a PhD who can therefore claim some level of knowledge greater than that of an undergraduate.
    What we don’t know is how many of them are still continuing research in their field, or have produced any published material on the subject.
    So we have 553 people with a science qualification greater than a Bachelor’s degree in a relevant field who dispute the science who may, or may not, have published a single piece of peer-reviewed research on the subject. Oh – and those are 553 people who joined a website which is completely open and not subject to any verification – so we only have their word that they are who they say they are or that they achieved the scientific level they have claimed.
    So not quite as impressive as it sounds, I think we can all agree.

    Oh – and the 700 on the Inhofe list, hailed once by that global authority Melanie Philips as distinguished world leading scientists (or words to that effect), included that well known leading scientist and no doubt soon-to-be Nobel nominated giant of his field, Alan Titchmarsh.
    Yes, that Alan Titchmarsh.

  15. GM/T: "Not to mention that Green House Gas such as CO2 causing rising temperatures on the Earth violates the second law of thermal dynamics. "

    Thank you. Nobody in the AGW camp seems to notice that at night on the side of the earth that faces away from the Sun it gets quite cold.

    But they are too busy mixing their vodoo potions and slaughtering chickens.

  16. keep smoking stoned,

    the second law does apply for several reasons I’ll give you a basic one here The earth unlike a refrigerator is not a sealed system. a better analogy is a frying pan. Flame under, pan and air above.

    As for credentials of names on any list the AGW community has less scientists than economists and poly scientists in it. And the majority of it’s figure heads have no scientific background.

    What matters is the proof was in the pudding and they threw the pudding out without letting others eat it. THEY DESTROYED THE BASE DATA, they adjusted the computer models to smooth out anomolies that did not fit their theories, and they got caught writing to each other on how to do it.

    It’s turning led to gold it can’t be done.

    Like I said it’s sad even in the cold realty of being caught with their pants down people like you can’t believe the truth.

    Anyone who still believes in AGW is like a battered woman that keeps staying with the man that hits her.

  17. It was the entropic change that is germane, but don’t worry about it.
    As for your laughable suggestion that those who support the theory of AGW have no scientific backgrounds, well even a moment’s work would show how devoid of truth that statement is. Let’s take, for example, the Royal Society for starters. Obviously no one with a scientific background there.
    However as this, and a great many of your other posts, have shown, you are not one who would allow such minor irritants as truth and facts to get in the way, so carry on as the living embodiment of the adage "ignorance is bliss".

  18. Phanton: "it is still to our advantage to achieve vastly greater energy efficiency …"

    Yes.

    NB. Windmills are not the answer, nor are they efficient. In fact they are grossly inefficient in terms of utility. Just for the sake of argument, how much energy would we have got from windmills in the UK over the Christmas peirod? That is right, at the point in time when it is coldest and our need for energy is at its highest the windmills were stationary.

    Phanton: ".. and to move rapidly to near zero emissions. .."

    No.

    Certanly not C02 which is part of the food chain, there is little evidence that more C02 in the atmosphere would be harmful.

  19. Stoned, yes the truth of faked data, rigged computer models and confessions in the AGWs communities e-mails in how they were doing it.

    Twist yourself another fat joint. Stoners are always fun to laugh at.

  20. Grizzly, the US didn’t lose it’s industrial base. The corporations moved it all overseas where they could get the same work done for a fraction of the cost by the locals, just to fatten their profit margins!

    As for oil, coal and gas, you know what I’ve said before. There is virtually no conventional light sweet crude left to be discovered onshore in the US and the offshore stuff is only viable just so long as you don’t mind paying 10 dollars a gallon for petrol! Check out the Cantarell field in Mexico. The second largest producing field in the world and a major source of oil for the US. Well, it’s in terminal decline, over 60 percent down already, and may have only 24 months of life left. Only 2 years, and then a major oil supplier to the US will be gone.

    None of the renewable energies will enable the US to grow any larger than it is now. In fact, the US economy must inevitably shrink in order to be sustainable at declining energy consumption levels. The corpratocracy know this, they also know the people won’t accept this, and are making the appropriate arrangements to deal with the populace as and when. 1 percent of the population own 42 percent of the wealth, 27 percent of the population own 73 percent of the debt. This is no accident.

    Grizzly, you are truly operating in cloud cuckoo land. All I hear in your post is a child’s wish to "make it never was". You need to ditch the hope and get to work making a new reality for yourself, my friend. Start with your local community. They are the ones who you will need in the future.

    It will be a kinder, better world, Grizzly…

Comments are closed.