Is the beginning of the end of gas as we know it?

If anyone is missguided or missinformed on this it is you guys who believe the party line. Oil Sand and Oil Shale are certainly sources of oil, however, the energy required for extraction is close to equalling the energy potential within said media.

Keep your fallacy-swollen craniums burried in the Oil-Sand, ignore the problem and reap exactly what you sow. Let us ignore the FACT of a finite resource, Newton too had something to say in his Laws of conservation of matter and energy, and assume for this riddiculous argument of yours that oil is "created"deep inside the Earth on a continuing basis. At current use levels, and use is not stagnant it is ever growing, What is the ecosystem to do in it's constant process of maintaining homeostasis, when we keep dumping CO2 and heat energy into the ecosphere? Please don't give me any "fuzzy science" arguments about Global Climate change being unsound or inconclusive. It is as plain as the ever-growing wooden nose on your face.

I predict, soon �Peak Oil� will gain the attention of the American people and challenge/ replace the political debate on Global Warming.

It will be the SOS; just a different topic.

A general overview of both issues reveals the same strategy and elements of argument will be in use. In the aggregate the argument can be described as: �Yes it is.�; Vs. �No isn�t.� It�s the �dueling links� and the media�s �screaming heads�; and as Shakespeare said in his play Macbeth, �a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing�.

And if I make add, for the idiots who listen and participate in a new and appalling form of entertainment called �Political Debate�.

Allow me to digress to examine just what type of debate I refer to here. Debate is generally defines in the dictionary as �To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss.

Looking further to �discuss� the dictionary says, �To speak with another or others about; talk over�; and /or �To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing�. I take from the definitions of the concept that �to debate� has the elements of an honest examination of the facts by two proponents of opposing points of view in an effort to form a conclusion or compromise in decision making or the setting of priorities. At least that the way it used to be, generally.

But today it seems the form of debate fashionable to day is this one: �A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition�.

It�s what some use to do in HS or college. They have teams that compete, too. By golly, its just a damned game where you bang heads using anything you can get away with using any means you can think of(Of course, and NOT get caught at) just to win � stealth and guile go a long way here. This form of debate has nothing to do with truth, honestly, logical integrity, or honest thoughtful consideration � It�s just ALL about wining. Period!

Well folks, that�s all just fine and dandy if you�re in HS or college; or you�re on the street corner BS�ing and engaging in one of those knock down drag out �Mine is BIGGER then yours� discussions. IT MATTERS NOT A TWIT. Even in politics �ABOUT SOME ISSUE � using this form of debate�.. It matters NOT.

Does it matter if the Post Office is named �The USPS Ronald Reagan Processing Sub-Station�? OR it is named after Jimmy Carter or Charles Manson? Just don�t matter a twit. So go at it, Boys����knock yourselves out.

But I would suggest there are some things you just don�t argue about. PERIOD

One of the more obvious (At least obvious to some who are not easily distracted, have a mild commitment to honestly and stay awake) thing you don�t argue about is things like

2+2=4

You�d be surprised just how many folks, yet, have mastered that concept. And these poor confused folks most often are gifted with personalities of pigheaded assuredness � and have loud voices. They argue /till the cows come home � and then�ll be late to dinner.

Putting things in context: Global Warming and Peak Oil are examples of �2+2=4� waste of time arguments heard today.

One says �2+2=4�; while the other damned fools say, �Hell, no. Its 3! Or possibly 5! � But never 4! You�re an idiot.�(Did you say OTHER fool, you ask? Sure did. Both sides are fools to waste the time � for different reason, �fersure. But till fools)

The other 2 things you don�t debate (off the top of my head) are issue where folks may die; and economic principles. But that�s a wholeeeeeeeeeeee other kettle of fish���.
IMO (screw the H part of it.)

I would just leave it at that "one thumbs up" but if I get caught expressing my opinion in less then three lines the process police swoop down and knock my head and take away my hard earned points. (Don't they know we have families to support?)

Golly knows they sure hang out behind the Billboards and swooooop down to write ya' up.......... Don't they have anything better to do?

I mean, you have folks out there committing logical errors and promoting sophistry, slight of mind fallacies, delay tactic and conversational cheap shots. Do they ever go after those guys? Nooooooooooooooooo.

One in a while they�ll have a push on it - always around Election Day or just before April 15th � but we all know - it�s for show. Us �Little People� always get it in the end � for starters; in the middle; and last off � no matter the time.

Now I hear they�re using cameras and take picture automatically to catch ya. My gosh! They don�t have to sit there any more and sweat. It must be a fuel economy measure to save money. Running the a/c with gas so high is real expensive, I bet. Or could be then they can spend more time down at Mel�s eating donuts and making time with Flossy.�

Well, I guess that�s enough lines. Sorry to waste your time.