And there you have it. Another reason for alternative fuels....

Why should he care if it upsets the West? Is anyone going to go to war with him over it? Are you kidding? We don't even want to go to war over people who are trying to kill us. We're going to go to war over someone who wants to sell us oil? I don't think so.

This weird obsession with what other countries think is a pathological aberration anyhow. It lets those of a certain mindset believe that all foreign policy requires is statements of disapproval and the occasional symbolic sanction and all will be well.

Bu-Bu-But Bush looked into Putins eyes and saw he was a good man. How could he do this.

This weird obsession with what other countries think is a pathological aberration anyhow. It lets those of a certain mindset believe that all foreign policy requires is statements of disapproval and the occasional symbolic sanction and all will be well.

It mirrors the same people's obsession with polls.

At its heart, it comes down to wanting to be in the "in crowd." A lot of lefties are lefties not because they've thought deeply about the issues, but because the majority of the media is, and they just want to belong.

Also any comment on the rumour that Rob's mom is a prostitute?

Wait until Pooty Poot has to face off with the environmental whackos. He'd prefer to go to war with the US.

On second thought, let's encourage the environmental whackos to go up there and confront Pooty Poot. Maybe he will go to war with them. That will get them out of our hair and out of our way for good.

Drill everywhere, drill deep, drill often.

Good job covering Jay's asshattery this morning, Kim.

I suspect Juvenile Jay and his rubber ducky got so excited about using the word "ho" in a post headline that he just drooled all over himself, ignoring the glaringly obvious strategic oil and natural gas reserves which are underlying the land grab, along with the less-obvious -- but perhaps even more advantageous -- aspect of controlling the arctic seas.

The big problem is that, even with the theoretical removal of much of the polar ice cap, there's still a LOT of ice left - and it's moving around.

Drilling for oil in deep water is hard enough, drilling for oil in deep water when the air temperature hits -60 C gets into the "oh, hell no" range. Look at how hard it is in the North Sea, where it doesn't get anywhere NEAR that cold. Costs for exploration and drilling are going to be high enough that they need really expensive per-barrel costs to pay for it - which means they'll be competing with Canadian oil sands and American oil shale for price.

The Russian fantasy of "the continental shelf extends out, so we can claim it" is pretty weak, too.

They've been working on this little fantasy since before 2002 (you can find references to this in old UN commentary). Nobody seems to be buying it.

"Wait until Pooty Poot has to face off with the environmental whackos. He'd prefer to go to war with the US."

I know can you beleive those idiots? Using all that science and shit to make their point. What a bunch of whackos.

I fully expect my next vehicle to be electric (with a small generator for longer trips). Yes oil imports will increase, but eventually will start to level off.

If anything, Russia will be selling its oil to its neighbor in China, which will be a really interesting circumstance.

It makes good theater for Putin. He can be Empirical and not really threaten anybody else's territory. Having Oil Deposits and drilling, pumping and delivering that oil is a far, far different thing.

Yet, drilling, pumping and delivering that oil would be a good thing, if he can do it.

These rules about continental shelfs are consensus fiction, just like so very many things are consensus fiction. More or less everyone agrees to pretend that continental shelves have some relevance to geopolitics when in truth it's been a very long time since any geological feature provided a national border enforced by the Earth herself. Rivers, mountains, oceans. In real terms they are irrelevant to political borders in any way other than in our minds.

In fact a nation holds what it can hold.

Consider the moon or Mars or Europa or Titan or any of the many new extra-solar planets discovered. Anyone can *claim* any of them but the claim will mean nothing at all unless the territory can be held. If others agree, then dandy. If others don't agree then too bad, so sad. Territory will be held by those that *hold* it.

And Lee interjects with childish insults. What a surprise. Lee Ward, single-handedly bringing down Wizbangblog.com. Time to do some rethinking, Kevin.

Let's see now: Russia planning on drilling for oil off our north, China planning on drilling for oil off Florida - what's wrong with this picture? Oh yeah, I forgot - we can grow corn - ok, then.

Oh yeah, I forgot - we can grow corn - ok, then.

And increasing demand for corn to make ethanol raises the prices on corn for food... both for us and for the cattle, pigs, and chicken that we then eat.

I know can you beleive those idiots? Using all that science and shit to make their point. What a bunch of whackos.

Posted by: Johnismoron at June 28, 2007 12:49 PM

How's that environmental whacko science working out up by Tahoe? You know, where the whacko's won't let them clear the underbrush and dead wood. Oh, yeah, there's a huge wildfire up there, fueled by all that underbrush and dead wood the whacko's won't let get cleared.

Milk prices. I'm thrilled when a "sale" is two gallons for $6.

Corn isn't... well, it's the sort of large scale mono-culture that doesn't lend itself well to anything but highly mechanized care with all the fuel for machinery, large scale irrigation,lots of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and all that.

Over at Flying Debris Blitzen is teed off at Putin for this brazen attempt to take the North Pole

"How's that environmental whacko science working out up by Tahoe? You know, where the whacko's won't let them clear the underbrush and dead wood."

Now I understand why rightwingers come off as so stupid. Science is a "whacko" concept to them.

hey john, I know you are a moron, but perhaps you could show me where science was used to demonstrate that fires wouldn't start if underbrush was left uncleared? Don't think you'll have any luck though, as science concluded wood was flammable some time ago.

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 28, 2007 12:15 PM

When the bloggers like Paul and Jay become trolls themselves, the quality of a site goes downhill quickly. That's what's happening around here lately.

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 28, 2007 12:41 PM

Good job covering Jay's asshattery this morning, Kim.
I suspect Juvenile Jay and his rubber ducky got so excited about using the word "ho" in a post headline that he just drooled all over himself

Riiiiiight lee. And Jay and Paul are the trolls. You can't even wait half an hour to expose your hypocrisy.

johnisamoron, you were the one equating environmentalism with science. Now you're saying that environmentalists don't follow science?

The thing about rightwingers and science is that we know that there is science and then there is that other thing so unconnected to reason, that holy calling, that crusade that must not be questioned, that squashes skeptics and loves high horses that inspiration of passion that cites "science" as a means to shut up dissent or discussion. Environmentalism.

"johnisamoron, you were the one equating environmentalism with science. Now you're saying that environmentalists don't follow science?"

Not true. "I said using all that science." They do use science. however, The argument to not clear brush and not remove wood, was not not based on the idea that they don't catch fire. So it is moronic to claim "wacko science" is responsible for the fire. Science was quite aware that wood burns.

Oh and I am fine with dissent. Reasonable dissent in peer reviwed journals that is.

What liberals know about science is that shills who take money from exxon and put up web pages with conclusions that they won't submit to the scrutiny of fellow sceintists, should be ignored.

omg! mixti is a anthropogenic global warming al goreacle disciple...

I would contribute to this thread, but it's disintegrated into a name-calling contest....why bother.

What about shills who take money in the form of grants to write about what Al Gore wants them to write about? Should they be ignored as well? Cause that would pretty much exclude all your "science".

Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned. If it comes down to confrontation, any fighting in the polar seas there are going to be dominated by subs (that whole "Under the Ice" thing). And Russia's remaining sub force isn't very impressive, whereas we have actually maintained one, and a freaking good one.

And Russia's remaining sub force isn't very impressive, whereas we have actually maintained one, and a freaking good one.

It's been a few years, so I don't know how it is today, but right before the turn of the century we still had the premiere ASW capability in the world.

Three years ago or so, we were having some problems tracking down a new Swede boat. Never came across anything on how that turned out.

Keep spouting my truly stupid friend.

Posted by: johnisamoron at June 28, 2007 03:09 PM

How is that little problem going with NOAA's temperature monitoring stations? You've heard about that, right? The one's they are finding in improper locations; in close proximity to man made heat sources, such as right behind where a jet is parked, or the exhaust path of an AC unit?

I bet those have been some very accurate and reliable readings. And the guy has just started. Only checked about 50 of the 1200 or so stations.

exxon, is of course, not as pure as the pure driven snow, which we know describes all of those who take government money instead of private money.

Yes, this is what liberals know.

Government money = pure and unfettered thought.

Private money = lying for a buck.

Oh, and politics never *ever* determines who's paper is reviewed in a peer reviewed journal.

So.

What *was* the reasoning behind not clearing deadwood? Was it scientific?

And if it was scientific why was it not important to note the scientific fact that wood burns?

Or is this like global warming where science doesn't relate to itself and we're told that world renowned physicists such as Freeman Dyson can't comment on computer modeling since they aren't one of the handful of global climatologists who specifically study global weather systems?

So maybe the scientists who study combustion weren't the special sort that matter when it comes to forest management?

"Exxon, is of course, not as pure as the pure driven snow, which we know describes all of those who take government money instead of private money."

Well gosh Synova, I didn't mean to suggest that Exxon is profit driven and might be inclined to exaggerate in order to protect its profits. Lord knows they wouldn't do that.

Nope, Scientist who want the big bucks, go for the government grants where the real money is. To add legitimacy to the whole thing they also do this really creepy thing, where they let other scientist check their work.

So there it is Big Green is buying our scientist. a couple of rich Hippies in Berkeley are squandering there vast fortune to destroy capitalism. That is one creditable argument you have ever made Synova.

"Government money = pure and unfettered thought."

Since the money is far less, the justification for risking your career on a lie is not as likely

"Private money = lying for a buck."

"Private money" conclusions, that buck the scientific community, and are not peer reviewed, and appear to justify everything a company does to increase profits, are reasons to be skeptical. If conservatives actually knew what being a skeptic meant they might understand this.

But hey, Light up another one! Smoking is good for you and not addictive! ignore global warming! Give your wife some booze if she gets pregnant! You skeptics sure know that the best thing to believe is an internal investigation.

If conservatives actually knew what being a skeptic meant they might understand this.

I'm very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Just like I was very skeptical in the 70's of the coming ice age.

"What *was* the reasoning behind not clearing deadwood? Was it scientific?"

I would guess the argument had to do with ecological problems. Which is of course IS using science. However, that would be real science, not the "wacko" stuff moron John is accusing people of using. You see science can tell us what is likely to happen if the deadwood is removed. They can all likely tell us what risk of fire there is if the deadwood remains, and then we can make a policy decsion based on that. "Wacko science" never comes into play. Whatever course is determined IMoron John has certainly presented no evidence that indicates there was ever anyhting wrong with the science. That is why he is a moron.

"And if it was scientific why was it not important to note the scientific fact that wood burns?"

Well I would think everyone over the age of six (even a conservative) knows that wood burns, and we wouldn't have to state that. The question is whether the likilood of it burning, out weighs the potential for ecological damage occuring. Factored in of course with the costs associated at a number of levels of the impact of either.

"Or is this like global warming where science doesn't relate to itself and we're told that world renowned physicists such as Freeman Dyson can't comment on computer modeling since they aren't one of the handful of global climatologists who specifically study global weather systems?"

Freeman Dyson can comment on whatever he likes, it is called the first amendment. However, I would think someone who considers themselves a skeptic would be well... skeptical. whenever someone is claiming expertise outside their area of expertise that is.

He may be right, but if a guy who does body work on car disagrees with the guy who fixes engines, wand the problem IS the engine. I am going with the engine expert. To some (such as moron John) this probably would seem like lunacy.

funny how the warmers always ignore that whole period isn't it John?! Or they give that bullshit excuse that is ALL just a part of climate change!!

"I'm very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Just like I was very skeptical in the 70's of the coming ice age."

That is some first class reaonsing there John. Eveyone notice the gist of his argument.

Science has made mistakes before,

Therefore: Science cannot be trusted.

Brialliant! I'm with you John! I am very skeptical about gravity myself. After all scientist once though an ice age was coming. So why should I beleive that?

The fact that you fail to see the extreme similarities in the chicken little calls about an ice age and todays hysterical screaming about global warming speaks volumes mixti.