The BIG LIE of the giant oil companies

With gas prices in the United States topping $4.00 a gallon in some places, we are now being told that to reduce prices we must drill in more places which oil companies have previously been restricted from going to, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Never mind that people generally condemn such vices as greed and selfishness, that are clearly represented by the desire to drill in such natural places when there are already alternatives available. Even if we had a huge increase in oil supply resulting from such drilling, there is no legal obligation in the United States for the oil companies to reduce their gas prices to the levels one would expect. Since there are only a few major oil companies, it would be a simple matter for them to conspire to keep the gas prices relatively high to enrich themselves further. 

Prices can be determined by both supply and demand. So if we really want gas prices to fall, the surest way to do that is to REDUCE DEMAND for the gas. We can do that by abandoning the gas-burning cars that are currently most popular and replace them over many years with hybrids, or better still with cars with fuel cells that burn no gas at all. Then there are the “electric cars”.  With the concern about greenhouse gases, we need to put pressure on the giant auto manufacturers to END production of standard gas burning cars completely. They are OBSOLETE!

It’s better to do that than allow the oil companies to continue to rape the Earth’s environments, and screw the people with high prices at the same time!

Can we send Bush Jr to hell now?

I think that question is worth asking after seeing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvz9jyf4gUk

Censorship in the name of religious freedom?

I’ve never seen such a blatant attempt at denial of academic freedom! Now, if the people being attacked were committing libel, this lawsuit would make sense. This is a clear example of hypocrisy!

http://www.pacificjustice.org/resources/news/focusdetails.cfm?ID=PR080512a

We don’t know enough?

I can’t stand anyone who employs a double standard to attack and deny an idea he hates. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the debate over global warming.

One of the arguments used by denialists on the issue is, “We don’t know enough about this issue to make changes to our economies that will affect the lives of millions.” There are two problems with that claim. First, the emissions of greenhouse gases we made in the past were done in total ignorance of how they would affect the global climate. Only in the past few decades have we gained enough knowledge to understand how the various factors work together over time to change the climate. Second, the denialists NEVER define when we WOULD have enough knowledge to conclude that man’s pollution must be curbed to stop global warming. Since they haven’t done this, how can their claim that we don’t know enough be justified?

Another claim made by the denialists is that “The movement to stop global warming is a scam to destroy capitalism.” Well, how can anyone know that, since there is no proof that anyone can read the minds of Al Gore and others on his side of the debate? Nor has there been any documentation produced to prove that claim.

Seriously, how can one claim that we don’t know enough about the science of climate change to conclude that humans are the main cause of the problem, yet at the same time claim dogmatically that the efforts to combat global warming are a scam? There is one word to describe such an attitude: HYPOCRISY!