How Much Oil Is Really in the U.S.?
On recent campaign stops, President Obama has taken to summing up America's oil supply problem with the following statistic: We use 20 percent of the world's production, but only have 2 percent of its reserves. Then this past week, the president got pushback from Republicans, who are citing a new government study to allege we have closer to 26 percent of the world's supply.Full Story
Since: May 11
#1 Apr 23, 2012
It doesn't matter whether we have oil coming out our ears. It's all sold on the world market, so that's how the price is set.
Oil companies have been manipulating the world for years. Unbridled capitalism at its best.
#2 Apr 23, 2012
biased and slanted article='mr bill'
“Headed toward the cliff”
Since: Nov 07
Tawas City, Michigan
#3 Apr 23, 2012
Nobody knows how much oil we really have, and in the end it doesn't really matter. Even if oil was bubbling up through the ground on every square inch of this country, we need to get off fossil fuels or our planet is going to become uninhabitable- for humans at least.
“Dow hit 18,000 first time ever”
Since: Jun 07
Obama economics at work.
#4 Apr 23, 2012
That’s why it was pure brilliance for President Obama to implement an all of the above approach to solving our energy problem… Solar, Wind, and Natural Gas is the thing of the future that thanks to President Obama will get here a lot faster. Generations will look back with praise thanking this President for (saving the environment) putting this nation on alternative energy and off of oil, especially foreign oil.
#5 Apr 23, 2012
Fact is there is more oil in US than in saudi, but government made there deal with the east aka kissinger had the deal made, WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER stupid lazy asleep americans
#6 Apr 23, 2012
PErkins Oil is just out MAdison and Monona. They have the worlds BEST supply PURER then any nation. But deeper you drill the filthier it gets, so they only tap into reserves when money is needed.
Japan tried to buy out the surrounding lands, but the family bought it fast and refused sale. ALthough illegal to work your land too hoarding laws, all the way down to a local WORM.
Wisconsins oil is of magnitude but nobody drills, it is like a curse unsaid for some reason. No irragating soils on property, nothing. So we did NOT ever go down in supply. Not used to save for global dryout. Then we will tap into ours.
#7 Apr 23, 2012
north and South dakota, just look into the facts of capped oil wells and abundance we have. T allow that would drive prices down to where the oil elite wouldnt make as many billions
WAKE UP LAZY AMERICANS BEFORE THEY TRASH YOUR COUNTRY POLICE STATE POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!
#8 Apr 23, 2012
The gap toothed Tea Baggers can't grasp that much of this remaining oil in the US is hard to get to, will take amazing amounts of fresh water, and will leave fracking chemicals bouncing about our water tables for decades, at best.
Not all reserves are created equal, but again, ignorant Tea Baggers can't fathom context or nuance or fact.
#9 Apr 23, 2012
Then I suggest you go live in china where they are a shinning example of how to handle tea people, oh and by the way, if i was a tea party person and you called me that I would tell you how good your mom was, so think before you name call, it just shows your pompus ignorance
#10 Apr 23, 2012
But you're too mongoloidal to make any suggestions, you cretin.
Learn to read a thermometer and what a blip versus a trend is and what a carbon sink is. Then get back to us, Jedediah.
#11 Apr 23, 2012
I have no need to back anything, the lie fraud of Man made global warming has been proven, just try to live with it. I bet you believe we are over populated even though we make up 5 percent of the world population.
I bet you believe gulf of tonkon really happened even though it didnt.
I bet you believe the twin towers came down from planes even though they fell in there foot print with proven flash bangs seen during the free fall.
#12 Apr 23, 2012
It's a shame this country is saddled with so many lying retardates as you.
You can't even define "proof" in a scientific sense, you cretin. You don't know an over priced, Glenn Beck gold coin from a hypothesis from a theory from a stick on the ground.
The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. You half hear half truths in your constapo media and commit about three percent of that to what's left of your brain.
I don't think you are capable of evaluating what the population of the US means - in terms of age demographics, in terms of persons per square mile relative to other places, in terms of population density in risky areas (say, without declining water tables or at sea level.)
You couldn't even get your idiotic reply on target: It's not the population of the US. It's the per capita use of carbon in the US, you fcking idiot.
Now stfu until you get sober and get ur hom skool GED.
#13 Apr 23, 2012
Science - true science, does not rest on consensus, but on proofs (lack of critical refutation).
The Climate Lobby has used cherry-picked data, data manipulation, media manipulation, condemnation of skeptics, and more to advance their "cause". Their results are so irrelevant that they cannot replicate their own results.
TRY ti keep in mind that Skepticism is an integral part of Scientific Methodology. If a theory cannot stand up to criticism, it is, at VERY best, not "ready for prime-time". Considering that Climate "theory" has many hundreds, if not thousands, of VERY credible skeptics, that tells a tale, right there. Climate "theory" is so poorly researched that even a sixth grader can poke large holes in it (and not the atmosphere). For example, the "hockey stick" graph shows CO2 levels TRAILING temps (cause comes BEFORE effect). The graphing process "averaged out" millenias worth of prior warming and cooling periods. Water vapor has approximately 1000 times the warming characteristics, and is 1000 as prevalent, as CO2, but was given low priority in calculations. The Sun's cycles and the Earths magnetic field (shield), are 10,000 times as important as airborne molecules, but neither were even taken into the calculations. 89% of weather stations are improperly located, giving valueless data. And more, MUCH MORE!
Even non-scientific supporters of "warming theory" are in on the demonization - "half truths in your constapo media and commit about three percent of that to what's left of your brain". Damning critics for daring to question, rather than responding in an appropriate manner, like giving honest answers.
#14 Apr 23, 2012
As I said you right wing freeeks don't have the basic terminology straight.
Proof is something you rarely find outside of geometry. Science is mostly theories. You don't know what theories are.
Science definitely proceeds based on consensus. There is almost never a total unanimity on anything. Even modern mathematics is said to be "the consensus of the qualified." Because even the mathematical proofs are so difficult.
The consensus on climate change approaches that you find on gravity. There are few topics on which there is so much scientific agreement.
You lie about the science, and about who is lying. The arguments from deniers are rife with illogic and misunderstandings from the getgo. I've already been through this.
By the way, mongoloid, which of the following do you not "agree with"?:
There is a greenhouse effect.
CO2 plays a role in the greenhouse effect.
CO2 emissions have been rising.
CO2 emissions are human mediated.
Winters are getting shorter.
The average global temperature has been rising since around 1900.
Carbon sinks are showing evidence of being maxed out.
Sadly you don't know what a carbon sink, or what a runaway feedback loop is. Do you at least know the earth is older than 10000 years?
#15 Apr 24, 2012
Ever hear of Cause and Effect?
Cause ALWAYS precedes Effect.
In the (discount) IPCC Hockey Stick graph, CO2 levels TRAIL temps, meaning that the warming may have caused the rise in CO2, not the reverse. Warmer weather, greater CO2 deposit release, greater CO2 levels.
Speaking of IPCC's hockey stick, whatever happened to the Medieval Warming Period, when temps were up to 10° warmer than now (and looooong before the Industrial Age). It's disappeared! Whatever happened to the Little Ice Age? Vanished, along with all prior climactic fluctuations! "Averaged" out of the graph.
I notice you did not respond to the improper installation of weather stations. We used to have 6000 stations in the US, relatively equally spaced. We now have about 1200, and 89% of those fail to meet EPA standards. Most are in cities (heat islands), and most are on or near heat sources (in parking lots, atop buildings, near A/C exhaust vents, etc).
How about the gauge for measuring CO2 levels prior to the days of instrumentation? When ice core measurements in Siberia did not meet expectations, Yamal Penninsula tree ring data was used. But tree bores that did not meet selective expectations were discarded.
How about the effects of Solar activity fluctuations, solar winds, and Earth's magnetic field?
Never even considered!
Finally, consensus is NOT a part of Scientific Methodology.
What counts is a LACK of countering evidence.
2 + 2 = 4, not because anyone can prove it so, but because nobody has ever proven it doesn't. Consensus is merely popularity, and when the people counting popularity deem themselves (only) fit to determine who is eligible to be counted, they've discredited themselves. Scientific Methodology is unafraid to address criticism from any and all fronts. Actually, if the "warmists" were credible, they would not feel the need to manipulate the message.
As an aside, you can skip the rhetorical hyperbole ("right wing freeeks", "mongoloid", etc).
It doesn't work on me and reveals your OWN irrationality.
#16 Apr 24, 2012
Of course it is, you know nothing cretin.
Because even with climate change theories there exists about three percent of qualified or semi qualified scientists who dispute human effects upon climate.
It doesn't matter if it's the Theory of Evolution (you deny that too, right?) or the Theory of Gravity, you don't ever get 100% to agree.
It is consensus. It is even consensus in mathematical proofs, as Lakatos said.
You "forgot" to explain what exactly you "disagree with." (I mean apart from the Theory of Evolution, of course.)
Is co2 a greenhouse gas?
Does co2 come from human activity?
Is there a greenhouse heat trapping effect?
Is more co2 being released now?
Carbon sinks (you can't name one) are getting saturated?
#17 Apr 25, 2012
What is Scientific Methodology?
Scientific Methodology is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. It looks roughly like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, consistent with the observation
3. Make prediction(s) based on the hypothesis
4. Test the predictions by experiments and/or further observations, modifying the hypothesis in the light of results
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation
For some silly reason, I fail to see consensus anywhere in that.
What, exactly, did I disagree with?
a) that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas
(Water vapor is 1000 times more prevalent and 1000 times as potent)
b) that the Earth's increasing temps are in a feedback loop (or if temps are increasing at all)
c) that the "warmists" are unbiased observers
(clearly, they are not)
d) that CO2 is the CAUSE of any potential warming
(CO2 may be an effect, but effect FOLLOWS cause)
f) that you have a flippin' clue. Else you'd not feel the need to resort to name-calling. Then again, the Climate Change lobby has engaged in the same disinformation and demonization. Why would they need to stifle opposing views if their theory had any credibility?
g) most importantly, I disagree that skepticizm has NO place in Scientific Methodology. Skepticism is actually an integral part of that Methodology. It raises issues that the original hypothesist had not thought of. It can cause the refinement (or discarding) of a given hypothesis. A given hypothesis MUST withstand scrutiny.
Clearly, you've swallowed the deception, hook, line, and sinker, without considering alternative causes of climate change (like normal fluctuations in stellar activity)
Add your comments below
|Asexuality? Yes, ita s a thing.||Jan 17||Kid_Tomorrow||5|
|Mitt Romney's 2016 Outreach Includes Tea Party ...||Jan 13||Holla Isabella||2|
|FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules||Jan 4||Kid_Tomorrow||1|
|Dirty Secret Affects Every Phone User||Dec '14||One way or another||2|
|For Obama, a good December, but hard choices li...||Dec '14||Guess Who||51|
|Johns Hopkins mistakenly welcomes wrong students||Dec '14||wichita-rick||4|
|Rand Paul: Jeb Busha s Common Core support woul...||Dec '14||Cordwainer Trout||3|
Find what you want!
Search The Washington Post Company Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC