Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Killing 40 million Africans by
banning DDT to save some frigging bird eggs is another example.

And the denier goes off on crazy claims.

You
people are PATHETIC.

You want to see people die by the hundreds of billions because you're
a stupid little worm defending the profits of multinaitonal oil companies.
Like all fascists you care only about your own greed and don't care
how many people die as a result.


--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 18 Mar 2012 23:08:28 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Have you looked at
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...20120229-RWR7C
or http://tinyurl.com/7runuxd

or http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02...ead_citigroup/

--- snip ---

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Have you looked at
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...20120229-RWR7C
or http://tinyurl.com/7runuxd

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 19 Mar 2012 02:24:41 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Have you looked at
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...20120229-RWR7C
or http://tinyurl.com/7runuxd

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

What "ever increasing difficulty"? In the last two years the world has
suddenly found it is swamped with oil and gas.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Have you looked at
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...20120229-RWR7C
or http://tinyurl.com/7runuxd

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

What "ever increasing difficulty"?

I forget how stupid you deniers are.

In the last two years the world has
suddenly found it is swamped with oil and gas.

What a stupid liar you are.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 19 Mar 2012 19:40:51 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:22*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-02-28 09:16 , RichA wrote:

On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, *wrote:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letter...118334979.html

NASA should be looking out, not down. *They've hooked their wagon to
the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

Ignorance becomes you.

You know how often sheep like YOU and the envirokooks have been DEAD
wrong in their hang-wringing, doomsday B.S.?

No, you're just to lyign denier.

Remember 1968? The Club of Rome predicted PEAK OIL! in 1980? Didn't
happen.

Have you looked at global oil production levels?

Have you looked at
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...20120229-RWR7C
or http://tinyurl.com/7runuxd

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

What "ever increasing difficulty"?

I forget how stupid you deniers are.

In the last two years the world has
suddenly found it is swamped with oil and gas.

What a stupid liar you are.

Assuming your brain (?) will aallow you to explore things you don't
already know, the following URL will give you a start:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106359

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

What "ever increasing difficulty"?

I forget how stupid you deniers are.

In the last two years the world has
suddenly found it is swamped with oil and gas.

What a stupid liar you are.

Assuming your brain (?) will aallow you to explore things you don't
already know, the following URL will give you a start:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106359

Gee, that only mentions that more intensive extraction methods have
made more natural gas available.

Of course, a denier idiot, if it could think for itself, might wonder
WHY more intensive extraction methods are even needed.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 20 Mar 2012 04:41:32 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

If you weren't ... "dim" then you'd think that the ever increasing
difficulty of finding oil would be a good indication that world oil
reserves are getting smaller.

What "ever increasing difficulty"?

I forget how stupid you deniers are.

In the last two years the world has
suddenly found it is swamped with oil and gas.

What a stupid liar you are.

Assuming your brain (?) will aallow you to explore things you don't
already know, the following URL will give you a start:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106359

Gee, that only mentions that more intensive extraction methods have
made more natural gas available.

Of course, a denier idiot, if it could think for itself, might wonder
WHY more intensive extraction methods are even needed.

For the same reason that more intensive extraction methods have always
been needed: because it's always the easy stuff which gets taken
first. That's what's been going on for over 150 years. Why should that
stop now.

The point is that the current 'more intensive' extraction methods have
produced a bonanza. The US now has the the largest known oil and gas
reserves in the world and on an energy basis gas is costing only 20%
of oil. I expect we will see a major drive to gas (not gasoline)
fueled vehicles commencing in the next 10 years.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Gee, that only mentions that more intensive extraction methods have
made more natural gas available.

Of course, a denier idiot, if it could think for itself, might wonder
WHY more intensive extraction methods are even needed.

For the same reason that more intensive extraction methods have always
been needed:

Now you're reduced to lying. Claiming that techniques like
mining tar sands and fracking have always been needed is just a
pathetic and stupid lie. 100 years ago you could almost scrape
the stuff off of the surface.

because it's always the easy stuff which gets taken
first.

Which means that there is no more easy stuff. It's getting harder
and harder to extract oil and gas.

The point is that the current 'more intensive' extraction methods have
produced a bonanza.

Fifty years ago oil was $20 a barrel.

Now its $110/barrel.

In the future it will hit $1000/barrel.

And idiots like you will still claim that there is plenty of the stuff
available because you're too scared to face reality.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
| Goethe

On 20 Mar 2012 18:24:57 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Gee, that only mentions that more intensive extraction methods have
made more natural gas available.

Of course, a denier idiot, if it could think for itself, might wonder
WHY more intensive extraction methods are even needed.

For the same reason that more intensive extraction methods have always
been needed:

Now you're reduced to lying. Claiming that techniques like
mining tar sands and fracking have always been needed is just a
pathetic and stupid lie. 100 years ago you could almost scrape
the stuff off of the surface.

That's true.

because it's always the easy stuff which gets taken
first.

Which means that there is no more easy stuff. It's getting harder
and harder to extract oil and gas.

Until about ten years ago, that too was true.

The point is that the current 'more intensive' extraction methods have
produced a bonanza.

Fifty years ago oil was $20 a barrel.

Now its $110/barrel.

In the future it will hit $1000/barrel.

You had better buy oil futures then. Mind you, you could be right, at
the rate that the US is devaluing its own dollar.

And idiots like you will still claim that there is plenty of the stuff
available because you're too scared to face reality.

Follow the facts, not the fear-mongers.

Regards,

Eric Stevens