Pics: Occupy Tampa jams interstate traffic with ‘No Keystone XL Pipeline’ sign; Police respond

A lighted “No Keystone XL Pipeline” sign appeared on an Interstate 4 overpass near Tampa this morning, reportedly causing traffic to back up for more than two miles. The culprit? Occupy Tampa and the “Tampa Light Brigade.”

“No Keystone XL Pipeline”? That’s quite the argument. Well reasoned!

Hmm. Better reword that:

Much better.

The Occupy group plans to do this again in the afternoon or evening.

We’ll pass.

  • Netmilsmom

    Once everyone gets used to lighted protest signs, they won’t be effective anyway.

  • Republicanvet

    So all those drivers paying huge amounts for gas being delayed on their way to work are going to be swayed over a sign about a pipeline being built in the mid west…that will lower their gas prices? Got it.
    Another fine example of leftist intelligence.

    • Timothy Powell

      Not to mention that the backup caused those vehicles to sit in traffic, thus emitting MORE exhaust and gases into the air, which supposedly is one of the concerns of this group with the pipeline. Yep, leftist intelligence at it’s finest…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/AnonMedia Decolonize Carlisle

      Hey idiot the pipeline is for export purposes. It will not lower gas prices.

      • http://gobblelogic.com Alison Foxall

        Exactly. It’s just going to go into the global oil market.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

          Oil is sold on the commodities market. Increased supply results in decreased prices. The advantage to increased domestic output comes from the reduced costs of manufacture, refinement, and shipping. Previously, Canada wished to sell this oil to us. Now, the sweetheart deal will go to China. I fail to see why you think this is a good thing, especially since our President previously thought so highly of the deal before his dramatic reversal.

        • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

          Which will affect the price as other countries want to compete for customers and lower prices.

          Kind of like it would work with the steel-strong hemp market if there were one. More hemp equals better prices. Now go fire up another doobie.

      • QWYS (Hydralisk of the Swarm)

        Because putting more oil into the global supply will cause prices to go up right?

        greater supply == lower prices.

        Regardless, your facts are incorrect — according to the keystone pipeline website, the oil would be shipped to refineries in the US for processing, not to terminals for export. http://keystone-xl.com

        Keystone XL Pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Canada and the continental United States to refineries on the Gulf Coast, where it can displace much of the higher-priced oil those refineries currently import from overseas. This view is backed up by a December, 2010 U.S. Department of Energy study which states: “Increased Canadian oil imports will help reduce U.S. imports of foreign oil from sources outside of North America”

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          No, your facts are incorrect. Where do you think that oil goes after it reaches the gulf coast? No DUH it’s going to the gulf coast, that’s where the pipeline leads! That doesn’t mean that the oil will then be used primarily for domestic purposes… It also will not stop any of our international oil negotiations, that’s a huge lie. If you believe that, then you have no grasp on global politics. Providing domestic oil at cheap prices is an illusion. Our government is much more concerned with controling the oil that could potentially be exported to our economic enemies such as Japan and China. Not a darn thing will change in the middle east just because we tap 2,000 miles of our own backyard, you live in lala land if you believe that crap.

          • http://twitter.com/conservag Aaron

            You say his facts are incorrect, and rebut him by throwing statements full of wild conjecture.

            He also links to where he’s getting his “incorrect stats” from… yet you rebut him by saying things like “That doesn’t mean that the oil will then be used primarily for domestic purposes.”

            If he’s wrong, tell us where the oil will be used. Tell us how he’s wrong. Provide facts yourself.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            No, his fact was the oil goes to the gulf. My point was that is OBVIOUS. The real fact is that it’s not known how much of the oil will be used for domestic purposes, and how much used for export. I can tell you that a large portion of it would be used for export because that is where most of the money is made in developing countries like China. The purpose of the pipeline is to “boost the economy” more than it is to provide America with it’s own source of oil… Boosting the economy means international trade…

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            You guys make horrible arguments… No wonder you’re losing credibility in the political realm. I’d be surprised if a pure conservative was ever elected president again… lol

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

            Cogent arguments based upon facts are now considered horrible?

          • Cambria

            Aww :) Look at the poor wittle liberal getting all defensive because he was proven wrong.

          • DrSamHerman

            YOU are the one spewing “facts” without citation, Kevin. Stop blaming everyone else for your shortcomings. Either cite where you came up with your “facts” or you get the “dimwitted leftist troll of the week” award instantly.

          • Republicanvet

            Kevvy, you ever stop to think that if it weren’t for eco-nitwits like you we would have more refining capacity here so we could use the end products here?
            You wouldn’t have to worry then about super economic super powerhouse economic enemies.

          • 97E

            So what?

            Boosting the economy is a good thing. Unless you’re a leftist drone that thinks businesses need to be run out of business. You obviously must be, given how stupid you are coming off here. Only a leftist drone could be this damn dumb.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Fillow/577263865 Terry Fillow

            Valve to relieve Midwest oil “oversupply”

            In addition to winning higher prices for Canadian oil in the Gulf, the pipeline would boost revenues by shuttling existing oil supplies out of the Midwest – boosting prices, the Canadian study and testimony also show http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0309/Inside-the-Keystone-pipeline-How-much-would-it-really-help-US-consumers/(page)/4 …..

            The Keystone Excel Export Pipeline is the next move in a complicated chess game by the oil and gas industry to assure sky-high future prices for its products – and unaffordable fuel for the rest of us. (In their minds the devastating environmental legacy is collateral damage – but the economic hit is a key ingredient in their model. They want us to pay too much.)
            http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/02/what-does-the-keystone-xl-pipe.php#2308286

          • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

            Uh, Kevin… Japan has been our friend since they surrendered after WWII…And China, even though they don’t see eye-to-eye with the U.S., are helping us deal with North Korea, etc. Jawamax 8<{D}

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Uh, John… Obviously you missed my point. I didn’t mean that Japan was actually our enemy, that’s why I said “Economic” enemy. There is economic competition between our two nations, and a vested interest in the oil of the middle east… I am not dumb, I know we’re not technically enemies… When it comes to economics, all super powers are our enemies in the sense that we compete with them for resources…

          • 97E

            Really? You’re not dumb?

            Could have fooled the rest of us with your utter lack of factual evidence to back up any of your hairbrained assertions.

            Silence, child. Adults are speaking.

          • http://Twitter.com/jkerrysforehead John Kerry’s Forehead

            Why do you keep coming back for more smack down? Not dumb? I disagree.

          • RightThinking1

            Kevin,
            The gulf coast is where refineries appropriate to that oil are located. None of it is going anywhere before it is refined. Where would you have it go?

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            More oil on the market lowers price as other countries want to compete. Sell your car.

          • QWYS (Hydralisk of the Swarm)

            So you know more than my friends and family that work in refineries in Port Arthur/Houston? Yes some of it will end up on the international market.

          • QWYS (Hydralisk of the Swarm)

            Ok, so i just got off the phone with a friend — A good portion of the oil currently carried by the existing keystone pipeline is refined in either Steele City, Kansas, or Cushing Oklahoma — and is consumed in the US. What is being objected to are the extensions, that will shorten time the it takes the crude, unrefined oils to move south, and an extension to Houston. Some amount of the oil going to the Gulf Coast refineries will go overseas, and some will end up in the Colonial Pipeline … for use in the US as diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, and heating oil.

            The reports of the pipeline increasing costs come from (a) pipeline opponents and (b) do not take into account the fact the pipeline terminus in Cushing is creating a bottle neck of crude, and putting the pipeline all the way through to Houston/Port Arthur will allow that crude to continue on and be processed. This will increase supplies both domestically and internationally.

          • DrSamHerman

            Either cite your data from a source other than a left-wing propaganda website or you’re just another leftist troll parroting talking points, Kevin.

          • 97E

            You know why it goes to the gulf coast, lackwit?

            Because, THAT IS WHERE THE OIL REFINERIES ARE LOCATED! YOUR BRAIN-DEAD LEFTIST BUDDIES HAVE FORBIDDEN ON-SHORE REFINERIES FOR DECADES!

            Get a clue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Fillow/577263865 Terry Fillow

            List of US Oil Refineries (actually quite a lot of them)
            http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_names_of_all_the_oil_refinery_plants_in_the_US

        • John

          actually the oil is being refined to sell to China (actually its already sold- china bought the sands from Canada originally)

      • Republicanvet

        So you would rather see Barky Kardashian’s crony and BFF Warren Buffet have a monopoly on shipping oil on his railroad?

        Regarding idiots, I see other commenters schooled you pretty thoroughly.

        • Tim

          how much have oil prices went down due to the Iraq war? they DID have alot of oil, and since we invaded, shouldnt all of that extra oil drive prices down…according to your simple law of supply v. demand? when was the last time you’ve checked gas prices?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

            They still have oil. America chose not to bankrupt the people by seizing that wealth, thereby crippling what we hoped would become a burgeoning democracy. By chance, do you recall the Weimar Republic? That is what we were loathe to repeat.

          • 97E

            Derp much?

            The US did not win the contract(s) from the Iraqis to develop and manage their oil fields. The Chinese (who did not participate in the war at all) did.

          • descolada9

            At the same time the number of nations wanting more oil have increased, particularly India and China, who are consuming more than ever.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Increasing supply to meet demand doesn’t put downward pressure on prices? Oh my! Thanks for clearing that up. Have you considered a career in economics or text book authorship?

    • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

      Riiiiight but the people that are idiots and actually causing more traffic because of a dumb sign are intelligent? There are signs all the time on I4, doesn’t mean you have to slow down or stop up traffic… You can’t blame the sign, nor do I see any real evidence that it was the sign that caused the traffic. Just because a newspaper says it’s so, doesn’t make it so. I4 gets traffic all the time.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        Just like a “scientist” saying something doesn’t make it true anymore either. Science is as susceptible to money from gubmint agencies and academia just like every other “industry.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          Obviously you don’t know Science. But it’s still fun to hear your opinions about stuff you don’t know about. Keep it coming. I think you, like many of your friends, confuse science with politics. I know there is such thing as political science, and there are some politicians that might use science to their benefit, but real science is not very susceptible to corruption and bias, especially not even remotely comparable to industry because lobyist and money run politics. But please, keep telling me how I’ve wasted years of my life learning science (and how to be objective) yet you and your friends are so much better at it than me because I never get tired of hearing that…

          • DrSamHerman

            And what kind of science have you studied, Kevin? Political science?
            If you think real science is not subject to corruption and bias, you obviously have never dealt with NIH, institutional review boards, grant writers, internal research committees or grant reviewers. The process of research in health care, and for all of the collateral research done in the basic sciences, is subject to more bias, politics and corruption (poorly drawn or supported conclusions, association taken for causation, irresponsible reporting, poor subject protection, unethical conduct).
            We do get tired of hearing people who claim to “know” or “study” science, but are not scientists of their own right or medical professionals who use such data in patient care.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I never said science was immune to corruption or bias. Obviously, if it were immune, it would not be necessary to have have all of these checks and balances such as peer-review, statistical analysis. Nothing in society is “immune” to corruption or bias. You’re totally missing my point. My point is that science is resistant to corruption and bias, more so than other sources of information, because there is effort made specifically within the scientific community to keep the information as unbias and incorruptible as possible. Why do I even waste my breath. It’s abundantly obvious that most of what I say will be taken out of context, misconstrued, etc…

          • DrSamHerman

            My point is that it is not resistant to bias or corruption, Kevin. For pity’s sake, humans do the research and therefore draw the conclusions. Often those conclusions are not even supported by the data, so a work-around explanation is offered instead. A lot of science is based on the same type of blind faith that religion is, that being that the measurements or validations thereof are accurate and without error. They are not.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I can’t believe you are actually comparing science to religion. I’m sorry but I just can’t even continue a conversation on this basis, you’re not on the same plane of existence as I am at this moment. Those are, at the fundamental level, completely different methods of gathering information. You severely overestimate the amount of uncertainty in science.

            Scientists are careful, most of the time. A scientist may know everything there is to know about a subject, say gravity, yet he/she will still call it a theory and say they can’t be sure (even though there is a law associated with it) because that is how humble the process of science is. It is true, much of the scientific theories are reevaluated, modified, and in rare extreme cases completely dismissed. It is very rare for modern theories to be completely dismissed though. Once something becomes a theory, that means it has been through rigorous testing, peer-reviewed, and has held up against many possible alternative hypotheses. I believe you are unaware of the evolution of science (parden the pun). Science has come a long way, and in a short period of time, much like technology. Science in Darwin’s day (mid 1800s, not long ago) was quite different. For one you had less than a quarter of the people to question your work, there was not many experts to make arguments or peers to review your work back then. Science was in its infacy if you will… It’s different now, vastly different. Most of the time logical scientific explanations of phenomena make much more sense to me than the emotional/bias/political/religious you name it. The simplest answer tends to be the right one, and when given the overwhelming evidence from mutliple sources of independent studies on the subject of climate change…. I’m sorry, but it’s not the science that seems to fall short…

          • DrSamHerman

            The plane of existence you are on has bacteria as the dominant species, Kev. You show complete misunderstanding of the nature of science, not to mention the narcissistic streak and incapacity to utilize metaphorical thinking. My, your mom must be proud that you’re still in her basement.

          • alanstorm

            I note you have not answered the question. What is your scientific training? It appears from your comments that the answer is zero.

            Actually, it appears that you have no training in anything.

            “My point is that science is resistant to corruption and bias, more so than other sources of information,” No. Science SHOULD be that way, but blithely assuming any human activity is pure and unsullied is idiocy.

          • 97E

            Tell that to the “scientists” at the University of East Anglia.

            OOPS?!

            Stop posting, mental midget.

    • therantinggeek

      “Leftist intelligence”. Wait, isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

  • Missy Kennedy

    Geez, these people have no clue about pipelines and how they are put in. They just believe what the ecofreaks say! Putting in a pipeline has minimal impacts and are meticulously maintained. Companies use “pigs” (camera on a line) to inspect the pipeline and they keep the grass mowed on the right-of-way. Its not like the old days.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Missy, my stepdad was a natural gas pipeline welder for 50 years. Sadly he was a slavish voter for Democrats, but a big proponent of energy. Yeah, we had arguments on the hypocrisy of that.

      But when the dirt is put back into the ditch to cover the pipe it is screeded to remove all stone over a certain (small) size. There are state and federal EPA along the worksite every day to check for any kinds of spills, even from the workers vehicles.

      Once completed, the land can still be used for crops because the pipe is 6-8 feet under ground. You can’t grow tree crops because of the root systems. But other than the warning markers for digging, you’d never know they were there.

      And the original “pigs” which are still in use are foam cylinders pushed through under air pressure to clean the inside of the pipe at intervals to check for the structural integrity.

    • BlueGood

      Actually Missy a “PIG” is a huge chunk of FOAM Rubber, dragged through the pipe line to clean it after installation…of course done in sections…..(I have one here at home (target for Bow practice), from the TransCanada Gas Pipeline that runs less than a km from my house….(Approx. 4-4.5 ft. diameter)

      I suppose a camera could be attached to the Pig…to inspect

      Canada is working on the GATEWAY Pipeline to the West Coast, but also an Eastern Pipeline to Montreal….so if U.S. does not want our oil, we’ll get it to market at either end of the Great White North….

      Personally, I’d prefer to see our oil go south to my American friends!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

      “minimal impacts” huh… That’s an arbitrary statement, often used by big oil to brainwash gullable people like yourself. What is “minimal”? Maybe minimal is only disrupting 4 rivers instead of 5. Maybe minimal is only going through 1897 km instead of 1899 km. The fact is, neither you or your friendly oil companies have ANY IDEA what you’re talking about. That’s because you’re not ecologists, environmental engineers or scientists, etc… You might have ONE environmental engineer degree guy on the payroll, but guess what! He’s getting paid by the oil company, of course he’s going to lie!!! Any unbiased, objective scientists that does analysis on the impact of that pipeline has one conclusion. It’s going to mess stuff up, that’s because it ALWAYS messes with ecosystems when you dig thousands of miles of dirt up, put a tube pumping biological sludge buried for millions of years, and pump into our atmosphere without a second thought on environmental impacts at every single one of those vulnerable spots. Get a freaking clue.

      • Republicanvet

        What are your credentials there Kevvy? alGore is a leading ecofreak…what are his credentials?

        • therantinggeek

          Not to mention, didn’t alGore sell his TV network to a certain broadcasting corporation based in the Middle East with ties to *gasp!* OIL!?!?!?

          • Silenttype78

            Well, see …that’s different…because Al Gore said so.
            His devoted followers were like “Yeah, seems legit”.

            Lib-progs believe that hypocrisy only happens on the right.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            you people’s problem is you view everything in black and white. This is completely a liberal vs conservative agenda in your mind, which is the biggest bunch of crap. I am neither liberal nor conservative, they are all idiots in one way or another (at least the extremists). I am just educated. I don’t care what Al Gore did, or what you think his agenda is, because that has NOTHING to do with the actual science. Although you people confuse Al Gore with the science all the time, which I find amusing.

          • Silenttype78

            “You people”…no you didn’t…what are you a racist?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            No I’m a politicist. There is nothing more scary to me than a true conservative. Almost everything that comes out of their mouth makes me want to facepalm myself… Moderate conservatives aren’t so bad most of the time… But conservatives are one of the most misinformed and brainwashed group of people on the planet. I can make a 2 hour presentation of how we are destroying the rainforests and thousands of plant and animal species going extinct, thousands of people are forced to relocate, millions of acres of forest gone forever (because rainforests do not really regenerate), thousands of tons of carbon added to our atmosphere each year because of the loss of the carbon sink, on and on. At the end of it I would get stupid comments and arguments that I hear all the time about these types of situations, because that’s how it always is with political minded conservatives. The sort of mentality that “well if it’s not in my backyard who cares, we need our jobs” bull crap. That stuff just scares me. Tragedy of the commons, look it up.

          • Republicanvet

            A politicist? I KNEW it. Science has nothing to do with what you are pushing. Ever study volcanic eruptions and how much is put into the atmosphere from them?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Actually yeh. That’s required in my field, obviously… What’s your point?

          • Silenttype78

            For …grant money?

            Look, I have really enjoyed the way that you have thrown a tantrum over “generalizations” then tossed out a whole bunch yourself.

            Then there was the whole “this isn’t about conservative or liberal…or black or white” how it is not political,etc. and now you have shown yourself to be the agenda driven ideolog that we all saw you to be in the first place.

            I asked you about bias in the Real Science You Guys community and you were all like “no,that only happens with big evil greedy oil”. Here is what you have proven to be at the heart of the matter- bias exists and not all of it is bought by money. Yours is purchased by favor driven by your leftist ideology. Some trade for power.

            It never takes long with “you people” to show your true intent, and that is exactly why you aren’t going to convince me that your For the Planet You Guys is genuine. It is nothing more than a thin veneer used to mask your true intentions.

            Kevin, you are a sell out, not any sort of scientist. You are just as bad as any scientific fact for hire yes man.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I am not agenda driven, at least not how you mean it. Conservatives always go to that excuse whenever they have science put in their face. It’s always agenda driven. The funny thing is that I think it’s all a sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” for lack of a better term. Conservatives are agenda driven, even when they don’t know it because often times the source of their information is agenda driven (like big oil, or the NRA, or the catholic church, list goes on). I’m not saying Liberals are not agenda driven as well, in fact if you want to get semantic everyone is always agenda driven in politics. That’s not the point, however. The point is the validity of the information. The credibility of it. That’s the difference between politics/economics and science. Science takes validity and credibility seriously, much more so than other motivations. That will always be a bad argument for you, because your motives can be questioned as much as anyone elses, yet you try and devalue science in which the very essence of it is to be unbias, and objective as possible.

          • Silenttype78

            I don’t doubt science. I just don’t exactly trust sources that are driven by something other than truth.
            Seeking truth should be the only “agenda” that drives the scientific community.
            You’ve proven post after post that your goal is to promote lib-prog values.
            The way you have treated people who disagree with your admitted agenda driven goals makes you seem as rational as the Catholic church circa 1600.

          • 97E

            What?

            Required for your field? What do volcanos have to do with your chosen “field” of Politics?

            Go away, Turd.

          • Republicanvet

            You’re a flaming lib, you just don’t have the guts to admit it. As for alGore, he is the chief warmmonger for climate change so you should contact him on why you think he is wrong on the “science” of Gorebal Climate changey warming…thingy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            he’s only the chief in your eyes because you’re so focused on politics and blind to the realm of science. Al gore is a politician, not a scientist. You can go on and on about how corrupt and evil Al Gore is, but you are not making a good argument against climate change because you’re not addressing the actual science…

          • Republicanvet

            He’s the chief in many eyes since you and many other pseudo-scientists have allowed him to be. He denigrates whatever point you might make by using fake data, hyperbole and scare-mongering solely to scam money.
            As for making a good argument, provide credible data and you might be taken seriously. As it is, your “arguments” are nothing more than emotional diatribes bordering on hysteria.

          • DrSamHerman

            We find you far more amusing. You use buzzwords like “science” and imply independence, when your language and points are anything but. And you are educated? In WHAT? You say below you are a “politicist”? To most scientists, that translates directly into “bullcrap artist”, Kev.

          • 97E

            “you people’s” problem is that you don’t see anything but what you want to see.

            You make some random turd up, then screech about it for days/weeks/years.

            Sequester, anyone?

            Don’t post again, lackwit.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          How bout a degree in Environmental Science with a concentration in human and ecosystem response to global climate change…. Your move.

          • Silenttype78

            I’d ask for a refund.

            You should have been taught that cars are made from nearly as much plastic as metal.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            Environmental Science, a made-up field of study to enrich universities and placate left wing simpletons.

            So you got your Doctorate yet?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Yeh I am so glad there are super intelligent people like you to tell me that my entire career in school was a waste of time for some made up agenda by leftists to… I am not even sure what you think their trying to do, but I don’t care because I’ve heard this stupid story so many times that it just makes me sad there are people that honestly believe that crap…

          • $45875941

            Amen Phil! Nail on the head!

          • Republicanvet

            So you have a vested interest in pushing eco nitwittery….I guess it beats flippin burgers….which you are doing now? How’s the market for your online degrees?

          • RightThinking1

            Kevin,

            First, I am going to assume by your tone (gratuitous label flinging), and your resume, that you are a kid. Which is another way of stating that your perspective on things is long on academics, and short on experience…, ignorance being organic to youth.

            You fail to consider (or deliberately ignore) the fact that everything that we do do in this life, we do at the expense of something else. Everything.

            The reason you do not live in a mud hut, and survive by eating termites, is that the generations before you have made very real sacrifices to develop economically viable energy sources. It was those sources which allowed you to be brought up in a stable, healthier, environment than your ancestors. It may well be the reason that you were born, and have survived. It is the reason that your life expectancy is unprecedented in the history of the earth.

            That ‘biological sludge’ that you refer to is miraculous stuff. Frankly, you couldn’t do without it, unless, of course, you revert to the mud hut/short-brutal-life scenario. If you would like to argue that, I’ll bet that you do it on a keyboard made with plastics. Take a look around you. Can you find a cubic foot of material that isn’t/wasn’t in some way dependent on petroleum for production?

            Is the supply infinite? No. But we need to make as much well-advised use of it as we can, and as inexpensively as we can. Your arguments regarding the ecological risks associated with the pipeline, which I am sorry to say have a narrow-minded, childish, hand-wringing quality, are distractive, specious and fatuous. To suggest that the pipeline can not be built without causing serious environmental harm begs all credulity. To suggest that pipeline accidents, if they occur, can not be managed is to promote unfounded hysteria.

            Arguments that the refined products might go overseas apply just as certainly to the products that are already produced here. To the extent that others might be prepared to pay our refining costs, shipping costs etc., fine. Oil is a commodity, and as such we (the individual consumer) must pay the market cost. That’s just the way it is.

            I reject out of hand the arguments regarding the impact on the environment…, it’s just a pipeline…, the technology is iron-monger level, and has been worked out by decades of engineering expertise and experience. I truly believe that the hyperbole mostly is generated by near-sighted eco-luddites so obsessed with a single issue that they are incapable of dealing with immediate realities.

            Call me what you will…, but not until after you have abandoned all of the benefits which you have and continue to enjoy from readily available petroleum.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I am going to assume by your condescending tone and arrogant disposition that you’re a egomaniac and a jack@ss. Nothing you just said is foreign to me, and makes no difference in the discussion we’re having about real world issues. Thanks for playing though. Not to mention that most of what you’re saying is completely to mostly false… I happen to know this for a fact because I have specifically researched and gave presentations on alternative forms of energy. And frankly we could completely do without oil, we always could have. Just because you can’t picture a world without it, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a viable world possible without it, perhaps even a better one. However I’m not making the argument for that, I am just pointing out your ignorance and lack of imagination. However I am all too familiar with the whole “I don’t know as much as you in your field, so I’m going to try and belittle you in an attempt to make my side seem more credible” tactic… It’s a cowardly way to go about it…

          • Silenttype78

            If we were doing without oil right now then your side would be bitching and moaning about whatever “big energy” allowed us to function.

            It is not about the environment with you people. It is about control.

          • RightThinking1

            Kevin,

            I may or may not be an ‘egomaniac’, if so, then so be it. The same holds for being a ‘jack@ss’. I assume that you are not a member of the ‘No Labels’ movement. At any rate, I am far more interested in objective argument.

            So, I must ask, what is it that I said that is ‘completely to mostly false’?

            I am also extremely curious how it is that we might have achieved the current level of civilization and associated technology without oil, as you have asserted. Just a sentence or two about the economically viable equivalent alternative should do. Help me to ‘picture it’ please.

            I acknowledge that I am ignorant, and it may well also be true that I lack imagination…., but then substance doesn’t really rely on imagination, does it? For instance, one might imagine that our energy needs can met with unicorn farts. If that seems fatuous, it is because it is obvious to a rational person that there is no such thing as a unicorn. If the same argument is made regarding cow farts, then even rational, but ignorant, folk may not recognize it as fatuous even though it is.

            While it is true that I do not know a great deal about your field of study, I do know a bit about energy, and in fact was a Charter Member of the state Solar Energy Society, if that matters. I am not going to get into a credential battle with you, but words like ‘cowardly’ naturally evoke a response.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            The claim that oil is the reason we achieved our level of civilization and technology may be true. The problem is that just because oil is given the credit for what we have achieved, does not mean that we could not have achieved something greater without oil. Suppose we discovered solar power before oil, and by this time we had the techonology to harness the abundant energy of the sun 100 times better than we do now… Virtually ALL of the energy on this planet comes from the sun, with a fraction of a percent coming from the core and perhaps other celestial bodies. The issue is not lack of abundance, it’s ability to harness the energy. That ability is far better than most people know, but it’s not an economically viable option so it is mostly ignored. Anyways my point is that it’s not a matter of who or what gets the credit. Yes, oil has been a major influence on civilization and technology. However it’s the only influence we know of, the past is the past. That has nothing to do with the value of it today. If I come up to you and tell you that I can give you an energy source that will power your car for it’s entire life without you having to stop and buy gas, or do anything at all really for your entire life, would you simply tell me that oil has been such an important part of our history that you’d rather spend all your money and time at gas stations just because you’re sentimental?

          • DrSamHerman

            Giving a presentation at the undergraduate level is not the same as defending a doctoral dissertation or giving a professional-level lecture to peers, Kevin. You could have done those presentations for a speech/rhetoric class or even just for your local College Democrats chapter. If you don’t have anything published or peer-reviewed, your work is just summarizing literature. And that literature can be of any quality from diatribe to well-conducted and verifiable studies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Yes thank you Dr. obvious, I am aware of that. The problem is your entire argument is based on assumptions and hypotheticals. It could be that the doctorate authors of the hundreds of credible science articles I have studied have sound data and conclusions as well. It’s possible that a person could be very well informed on a subject without having done something publishable themselves yet. I never made the claim that I know it all, or that I have nothing left to learn, so I am confused on why you point out the obvious in the first place. Unless there is something intelligent you want to offer with the topic at hand, which I have seen very little of over the past hour.

          • DrSamHerman

            Kevin, you’re the one who comes into this venue telling people that they are incorrect, insulting their intelligence and in general acting like a spoiled child. You have offered few, if any, tangible citations supporting your assertions. You have not engaged in anything but cowardly “insult and run” responses. Directly, you implied that your knowledge of the subject was at a higher level and you built your entire argument around the ludicrous basis that you are an expert on the subject. Now comes the deflection that you say you are not a know-it-all even after demonstrating that you are. That’s a very narcissistic and childish approach, Kevin. I point this out because you don’t seem to know how you come off in this forum. You also don’t seem very well informed on who posts here. I have read posts from other physicians, scientists, engineers, health care professionals, attorneys, accountants, etc. Not one of them who self-identified as a conservative, in any of the posts I have read, ever comes off quite as arrogant and insecure as you do. There doesn’t seem to be any reconciliation of what you claim to know versus what you deny you have done. I honestly don’t care what your assessment of me is, but I do care that you come into a venue and start shouting political talking points and insulting conservatives when you have no credibility to so do.

          • 97E

            Oh, we’re sorry. OUR ignorance?

            Are you going to tell the Obama Administration’s EPA that THEY are ignorant as well?

            Go ahead. Do it. We’ll wait to watch while they all laugh you out of the building.

            That’s what I thought. You won’t, because you know you’re wrong, and are too cowardly to admit it.

            Once again, stop posting.

          • DrSamHerman

            So you hold a *bachelor’s* degree in ES? That’s about as worthless as a degree in Sanskrit. Undergraduate level courses do not have nearly enough laboratory time and skill development to do anything but take sewage samples and run them through automated machinery so that a person trained at the doctoral level can do real research and not regurgitate opinions from left-wing ES professors indoctrinating future little leftists like yourself, Kev.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I’m not a leftist, they are idiots too. Just not as bad as conservatives. I go where the science takes me. I have seen the arguments on both sides, and the ones on your side are simply weak and usually easily disputed when one is educated enough on the subject.

          • DrSamHerman

            In other words, you have no defense but the childish “nyah nyah you’re dumb” approach. How scientific of you.

          • Guest

            Dr. Herman, Check out Kevin’s Facebook page. He can’t figure out how to get his profile pic upright, so I seriously doubt there’s any kind of college education the mix here. It looks like he gets his “environmental science education” from a variety of Progressive environmental and climate groups that he follows. http://www.facebook.com/kfentress

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Yeh thanks for your expert analysis on the subject I’ve spent a third of my life studying, and your blatent exaggeration of the entire field of environmental science based on your narrow and unsubstantiated disagreement with a very tiny aspect of the entire subject called “climate change”. I’ll be sure to let the overwhelming majority of doctorate climatlogists, geologists, biogeographers, biochemists, meteorologists, environmental scientists/engineers, ecologists, chemists, biologists, etc… know that you disagree with them.

            Don’t you dare come back at me with that infamous list of “expert scientists” that claim to question the science behind climate change. I took the liberty to look at that list a while back, and couldn’t help but chuckle. The super vast majority of that entire lists were fields unrelated to the field of climate change. Psychology, Economists, MA’s in Business for goodness sake!!, don’t beleive me, go look at the detailed list yourself. Most of the actual climate (or related) scientists on the list were either associated with some obscure organization that has who knows what kind of motives, or you could actually look them up and find they were affiliated with the an oil or automobile company directly… Man that list cracked me up. Of course there were probably a few legitimate scientists that simply disagreed, that is to be expected, but the overwhelming majority of that list was just laughable… It makes you think, why would they put so much effort in the propaganda of this list that turns out to be a scam just to put doubt about the science behind climate change?? Why was there so much effort to discredit Mann through his emails and graph, all which was easily disputed by several scientists (that you don’t see in the media because when do you see scientists on tv??). There is an obvious campaign of ignorance being spread, and it’s hard not to conclude based on the immense effort being put forth that there are some obvious economic interests forcing this issue.

          • DrSamHerman

            You mean scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, who argues that IPCC’s climate change data is based on faulty premises? Or Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa? Or Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics? Or Joanne Simpson, a top weather expert who retired from NASA and said she was glad that she could now speak freely against climate change? Yeah–they’re all oil company shills, Kev. Or how about the poll of Canadian engineers that showed 68% of them don’t believe in the climate change doomsday scenarios. They’re all big corporate criminals, aren’t they?
            I haven’t run across a paranoiac conspiracy theorist like you in a long time, since I stopped treating severe schizophrenics over three years ago.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          I assure you, I know much more about this stuff than Al Gore. Because he’s not a real scientist. He is a politician that presented what a bunch of scientists told him in his own little way. But you guys go ahead with your cute little Al Gore obsession, because it’s always entertaining. It’s all you have because you have no idea about any of the real science…

          • Silenttype78

            Real Science You Guys!!!!

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            You know as much as Al Gore? Wow, I’ll bet you impress the chicks with that line….or dudes, didn’t mean to hate there.

          • Republicanvet

            You don’t know me from Adam so you go ahead and foolishly assume…
            Were I involved in Real Science You Guys, I would be rather vocal about scientific conclusions arrived at by consensus.

          • $45875941

            Hey little minded Kevin, so you’re a “scientist” huh? Do you know what an ecosystem is? Do you know what plant life lives on? Do you know where oxygen comes from? Do you know how how much pollutant particulates one volcanic eruption puts into our atmosphere in relation to ALL the industrial manufacturing plants in the world? Do you know that volcanos have been erupting since the beginning of time? We’re still breathing. You’ll probably have to look all this up, and if you do, and can then answer all these questions honestly, then see if you can still tell us there is such a thing as man made climate change. Remember the real ice age? Yeaaaaah, climate has been doing this “change” thing for millions of years now. How arrogant to even think, that we little ants on this planet and it’s flawlessly functioning ecosystem, are even capable of altering one iota of the climate in the microscopic period of time mankind has been using fossil fuels. See, this is where you agenda driven liberals (which has been proven in studies to be a genetic defect) demonstrate your inherent absense of common sense and logic. Must be hell going through life so ignorant and brainwashed by the daily kos. You people deserve to be pitied.

      • Silenttype78

        Kevin,
        “Minimal impacts” are only ok when lib-progs use them to describe the negative impact their policies create. What,then, is “minimal” 100 jobs lost to a far less environmentally concerned China,or India? Here we have tons of regulation and oversight – in other countries ….not so much.
        So environmental bias can only go one way? You don’t think that there is a chance that there are ecologists, environmental engineers,and scientists that may be motivated by bias?

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          FAR less chance that the oil companies that make billions of dollars through the spreading of ignorance are biased… I am involved in the science, I assure you that there is a lot of effort made within sciences to mantain objectivity and reduce bias… I know because I am involved in it, there is even a class I had to take that dealt with specifically that, and another class that dealt with statistical bias and how to avoid it… There is also the peer-review process… You don’t understand this stuff, that’s ok. But what you DON’T want to do is put up the bias and manipulations of the oil company against the possible bias and misinformation from the science. You will never win that argument. That’s not the say that scientist never have bias or manipulate data, but it’s rare because they will usually get caught or disputed. When you hear something like 90% of scientists agree on something, that MEANS something, you shouldn’t ignore it, unless you want to live your life in ignorance…

          • Silenttype78

            Oh, Kevin…I would so enjoy having you explain all of this Real Science You Guys stuff to me but I unfortunately have all this “non science” stuff going on. Stuff you probably wouldn’t understand,but that’s ok 😉 .

          • DrSamHerman

            “Consensus” in the medical community held that antibiotics would end the threat of bacterial infection by 1970, Kevin. That didn’t happen.
            Scientific “consensus” is an oxymoron. The very nature of science is doubt mixed with skepticism and driven by proper and verifiable methodology. There has been too much cooking of the books in climate data to take it seriously. As well, the methodologies that have been employed by climate scientists have been questioned within the field enough that no one really knows. All of these conclusions were drawn based on mathematical models which are far less than the 95% accuracy reqiured for clinical medical research, and indeed most models are never more than 50% accurate in pure Bayesian probability. That means they are as accurate as a truly conducted coin toss.
            Sorry, but to make policy affecting billions of people on such flimsy evidence is unethical.

        • 97E

          Silent, the point Kevin has not brought up is that he doesn’t give two craps about the environment. He cares about what is immediately around HIM.

          Didn’t you know? Liberals are all the center of the universe. If it doesn’t directly affect them, it doesn’t matter. George Carlin had a few entertaining things to say about these limp-wristed, hand-wringing eco-whiners.

          • Silenttype78

            I did not have to bring it up.
            They always tell on themselves.
            Read through his posts. Hilarious.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        The EPA gave it clearance and the President supported it. Are they similarly “brainwashed” by big oil?

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          Worse than brainwashed Jillane, they are paid off. Anyways what does it mean when the EPA gives it “clearance”? That means that the environmental impact is acceptable? Who’s to say the value of that environmental impact? I can save you the trouble, there is no true value associated with it. Environmental impact is only considered when it’s forced to be considered, because it only means more cost to the producer. If it were up to the industries, they would tear down every last tree on the planet, use every last drop of oil, and just monopolize the alternatives when the supply runs out. That is why we have events like the dust bowl, global climate change, deforestation in Brazil, etc… Capitalism is anti-environment. The EPA does not work. The EPA is an organization that establishes a “cost” for these environmental impacts. So as long as you can afford the costs, they will always give it “clearance”.

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        Kevin, I hope you don’t get tired pedaling your generator and walking to town. I know you don’t use any petroleum or products derived from it or transported by it. Otherwise you’d be a big ol’ poopy-headed hypocrite. And I can tell by your intelligent post that definitely aren’t one of those.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          Right because that’s your huge generalization of liberals (which I’m not one) and complete ignorance of actual alternative energies available to us right now. Keep it up.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

            The same alternative energy sources that are heavy on subsidization and low on efficiency, right?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Wrong, you named about 2 examples of about 1000, not to mention that most alternative energy plans have multiple facets to them that are way too complicated to be able to compare them with oil… Some of the alternatives are far more efficient than oil, oil is not even that efficient of an energy source actually… Most of the ones that aren’t as efficient is not because the source is less efficient, but it’s because the technology and infrastructure is not there to make it more efficient (although much of the technology is suppressed, and it’s easy to find evidence on that). Subsidization is what happens when you need to introduce a completely new commodity to replace a broken down or obsolete commodity (like oil) that has a corner on the market. It’s almost impossible to compete with big oil, they make sure of that… The energy companies tease you about alternative energies to keep the “crazies” happy in their minds, yet they do everything they can to suppress the use of these alternatives because there is much less profit to be made off of sunlight, or wind, etc… As long as we let it happen, oil will be our source of energy no matter what technology we come up with. Our economy is basically centered around energy companies. Alternative energies threaten the very foundation of the wealthiest industry that exists in this world. Wealth = power. If you honestly believe that these big oil guys are just honest Joe’s giving you all the information and doing nothing to manipulate politics and economics to maintain their domain over the global economy, then give me some of what you’re smoking.

          • 97E

            Solar panels aren’t going to get your slimy arse from the hole you call home to the McDonald’s you work at with your worthless degree, moron.

            When you can find a way to get people from point A to B with a method that doesn’t involve an I.C.E., then you can whine. Until then, cram it up your @ss.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            If an alternative source isn’t marketable without government intervention, it isn’t an alternative.

            And before you go on about tax breaks for oil companies, the oil industry made it’s way long before the government put volumes of restrictions on them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Of course the oil company made it’s way, back in it’s inception it was the shame diggity. Automobiles and planes were all new and hot stuff powered by that beautiful black gold from the ground. We’ve come a long way since then, techonology is increasing at a faster rate than ever before. The economy is not keeping up with it. In fact capitalistic economics interferes with certain technilogical advancements because if there is not a profit to be made from it, research and development will be largly ignored in certain areas (like alternative energies even though it is known that there is enough free, renewable, available energy just waiting to be harnessed to be able to power the entire planet 4 times over) because it’s considered a waste of money and resources to that companies economic interests…

          • Silenttype78

            Kevin….really… are you going to sit there and honestly say that we would all be so much better off right now if it weren’t for capitalism holding us back?

      • DrSamHerman

        Citation? And again–no agenda-drive garbage sources, please.
        Unless YOU are an ecologist, environmental engineer, biologist, biochemist, toxicologist, physician or other associated scientist, you are hardly in a position to tell anyone that they are gullible or brainwashed. You haven’t cited one verifiable source for your assertions. Everything you have said could have come straight from a press release from an extremist left-wing environmental organization funded by alternative energy companies. Are you really a scientist or not? Having one environmental science course doesn’t make you a scientist, Kev.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          I am not sure I want to waste my time using credible citations for people that would not even understand what they are looking at. That’s not an insult, just a fact. If you gave me a paper on physics, I may not understand half the language. The average person is not well versed in scientific language. Perhaps you are, I’m not sure, but you’re one out of maybe 100 and I’m still trying to decide if it’s worth my time. I will point out, however, that I am careful about the information I put out there. It has either come directly from a scientific journal, or something I know from my studies. I may make a mistake or two, who doesn’t, but I don’t go around making dubious, unsubstantiated claims. That would be irresponsible science, and I take science seriously. You can argue the data all you want, but you got to make the argument to the people that came up with it, not me.

          • Silenttype78

            So …. you have all of this wonderful knowledge that you “could” share but you aren’t sure posting a link would be a wise use of your time ?
            Has it been a wise use of your time to post tons of lib-prog sky is falling spew without providing any proof?
            You got through college that way?

            You know Kevin, I am convinced that the years I spent researching and then providing evidence for my work was just time I wasted.
            It appears that I could have spent less time and put forth way less effort by just getting a Real Science You Guys degree .

            So how does that work anyway? You just repeat whatever you read in texts or are told by professors? Were your labs an exercise of hand holding?
            That’s not what getting a degree should have been like,and no they aren’t supposed to touch you “there”. Those of us who actually worked for our education didn’t get to toss out theories and receive a pat on the head. We had to prove it.

          • DrSamHerman

            Hmmm….a little narcissism with your histrionics, Kevin? I’ve practiced psychiatry and neurology for nearly 40 years, and guess what? Scientists are just human beings and are not prophets. They are subject to the same biases, idiosyncrasies, corruptions and foibles. That means they make mistakes and succumb to pressure for tenure, promotion and economic. It would be naive to think otherwise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

    At the very least, they aren’t taking a page out of the Occupy Cleveland’s book and plotting to blow up the bridge.

  • Matt

    Seriously, fuck Occupy Wall St. Sure, gas can shoot up to 5 dollars a gallon but since none of these smelly hippies (and living in Tampa and being familiar with this group, I can safely say “smelly lazy hippies”) own cars. Despise this whole (lol) “movement”.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Matt, we have a herd of them near here and they do own cars. It’s the 25+ year old Subarus and Volvos that have the back end held together by bumper stickers.

      • Blake Waymire

        Got a couple of Occupy-ish wackos I’ve seen here. The rear ends of their 25+ year old cars are indeed held together by bumper stickers, but the front end tends to go with the more classic duct tape (one had a hood that was a different color than the rest of the car and didn’t actually fit right). Maybe a window of packing tape held in place by more duct tape.

        My 13-year-old Taurus looks incredible next to those things.

  • http://gobblelogic.com Alison Foxall

    Good for them. Ban this oil nonsense. We don’t need oil, we need to grow hemp, which can be made into materials stronger than steel and it is cheaper!

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Right. And we need an alternative to oil that is stronger than steel.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        It’s science, don’tcha know? 😉

    • Jack Deth

      Are you as ridiculously ignorant as you propose to be?

      Or do you just blather here to invite abuse?

      Oil runs the world and its commerce. And will well into this century. End of discussion.

      Hemp is not nylon. And nylon can be extruded, spun and molded to make Kevlar, which in many cases is stronger than steel. Most oil based inorganics can have tension and pressure applied to create very sturdy materials in ships and aircraft where lightness of weight counts.

      Organics?…. Incredibly not so much.

    • J. Cox

      Tell you what…you prove to me that hemp can replace oil by taking as much of it as you need to Irkutsk and survive a few winters,then I might think about giving up oil,till then…get off your computer made by oil by-products.We wouldn’t want you being a hypocrite now would we.

    • TJ

      you missed the /sarc tag as people can not see sarcasm without it. They might call you ridiculously ignorant.

      • Jack Deth

        Good catch, Tjexcite:

        What “/sarc” tag?

        I perused Ms.Foxall’s comments (All 21 of them in the course of due diligence) and she appears firmly set in the far left sector of anti conglomerate/big business Luddites.

        One wonders what form of technology Ms. Foxall employed to make her statements?

        A Smart Phone, Lap Top or Desktop computer, perhaps?

        All of which are products of “Earth threatening precious metals and oil based plastics”?

        The Hypocrisy runs deep with Ms. Foxall. And wreaks loudly!

    • http://twitter.com/conservag Aaron

      “We don’t need oil, we need to grow hemp”

      Hm, like every other sane person on the planet, I never of thought of it that way. It’s so simple! I will just trade in my car and then drive my hemp plant to work from now on.

      Global warming solved!

      • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

        HAHAHA you’re so clever. I see what you did there. You used your complete ignorance on what she was talking about to make a joke about driving hemp plants. Almost like cars were made out of oil, and not metal… Actually I don’t get the joke at all, but of course what she’s talking about is very real and actually used in remote places in the world. Iceland, for example, has more than 80% renewable energy for their total primary energy supply. Now that’s not from hemp, because they don’t have the climate to grow it. It’s mostly geothermal. Filtered hemp oil can be used DIRECTLY to power disel fuel engines, and we all know that such a large majority of our fuel consumption is by disel engines, all those trucks on the interstate… Get educated before you start spreading your ignorance like a diseases. It gets so frustrating when I see stuff like this because it’s like a cancer. The oil companies have done such a good job brainwashing millions of people with their billions of dollars that it would seem that there is no hope for us. Oil is finite, it will run out sooner or later (that’s a fact), why wait until it’s all gone before changing what we already know we can change? Why wait until the next world war when everyone is killing for the last drops of oil before changing our energy consumption. There are SOOOO many alternatives to oil, it’s not even funny. Billion dollar oil companies would have you believe something bad about each and every one of those alternatives, and why not? They lose their gold mine if we smarten up and change our ways. It is, and always has been, about money. If you don’t see that, then you’re just deluding yourself. Good luck with that.

        • Silenttype78

          “HAHAHA you’re so clever. I see what you did there. You used your complete ignorance on what she was talking about to make a joke about driving hemp plants. Almost like cars were made out of oil, and not metal…”

          Say, how much of a car is made of metal these days?
          http://www.livescience.com/5449-chemistry-life-plastic-cars.html

          “Actually I don’t get the joke at all, but of course what she’s talking about is very real and actually used in remote places in the world.”

          Of course you don’t get it.

          I agree it is real and used in remote places of the world….however….mud huts are also real and used in remote places as well. I am not exactly looking to devolve to developing nation quality of life myself,but you go right ahead.

        • http://twitter.com/conservag Aaron

          a) You are correct. I’m ridiculously clever.

          b) No, I didn’t use my ignorance to make a joke. I used her inability to make a coherent argument to make a joke. Very big difference.

          And you may think I’m spreading ignorance like a cancer (never realized I had that much influence. Damn), but so do you people when you make statements like “we don’t need oil”.

          I’m just glad we can all agree how clever I am, though. Building bridges, one at a time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            I didn’t mean only you spread ignorance like cancer. I meant that ignorance is spread like cancer, you’re just a single cell of that cancer helping to pass it along… Nice job on being egocentric though. She did make a coherent arguement IF you were educated on what she’s talking about. Obviously if you don’t know about the fuel possibilities of hemp oil, then you migh consider her argument incoherent. But again, that’s an egocentric outlook on things there…

          • Republicanvet

            Ah leftists…get a degree out of the back of a magazine and suddenly everyone around them are uneducated rubes.

        • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

          You call him ignorant and yet you don’t understand the importance of using paragraphs to convey information?

          • therantinggeek

            Must’ve been that education he took to get that degree in Environmental Science. Apparently they forgot to include English Composition 101 in the graduation requirements. :/

        • Republicanvet

          Uh, Kevvy, the “oil is finite” tripe has been around since the ’70’s…why has oil production continued to go up years after we were said to be running out?

          • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

            Because there was a lot of oil to begin with?? You know what else has happened since the 70s? Our world population has more than doubled from 4 billion to 8 billion. The percentage of the world population that uses automobiles has more than doubled to over 1 billion (around 12.5%), with an exponentially increasing use in China with the largest population right now. The estimated amount of time for the oil reserves to last is 40 years right now, and that is lenient considering the exponetial increase in both usage and population right now… 40 years is a blink of an eye in economic terms… Do we really want to have this discussion? Because this is where your people’s argument falls apart. You guys don’t understand certain concepts. For example how reltively short the period of time that we’ve been using oil has been. It may be longer than your lifetime, but that is nothing when considering generations of people, your children, etc… People like you can’t see past two feet in front of you. It’s all about consumption and give it to me now, who cares about later, they can deal with it. You have no sense of reality because your world view is based on such a short period of time, and not on the long term. Such is the failure of the capitalistic society. It’s all about temporarism. it’s a failed system like all others before it, just in a different way, but irronically not to unlike the failure of the roman system (from which it was based on). You can’t have capitalism and sustainability at the same time, because they contradict each other. In other words, the system is doomed to fail, and always has been since its inception because it’s not designed to last. It’s just a matter of when, and what then. And big oil is simply a prime example of that reality. You consume and consume until it all runs out, then you move on to something else to consume. The last thing you want to do is use something that’s renewable and sustainable because your profit goes out the window… I’m not saying there aren’t some interesting ideas from capitalism, and it’s better than many other systems out there in a lot of ways. That doesn’t take away from its fundamental flaw, however.

    • Lady 12

      Can this stronger-than-steel hemp become fuel somehow?

    • therantinggeek

      OH NOES!!!!1 WE NEEDS TO GET RID OF THOSE EEEEEEVIL OIL COMPANIEZ!!! THEY’RE HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT!!

      (Yeah, obviously that was an exercise in sarcasm.)

      Like those whom (correctly!) pointed out in their replies to you, unless you can make hemp a viable alternative fuel source to power transportation, you’ll also impact the following:

      *Roads (more correctly, the bitumen or asphalt needed to build them.)

      *Airlines (no more jet fuel. So much for wanting to travel to Europe or Asia by airplane to go on that backpacking trip!)

      *Homes (no more heating oil.)

      *Cosmetics (Bye-bye Vasoline)

      But wait! Allow me to cite PBS (yes, *that* PBS associated with Big Bird, the very same lovable character that no-good Mitt Romney wanted to cut funding for! The shame!)

      http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf

      So, princess, do you *still* want to call for a worldwide ban on oil?

      • 97E

        What we need to do is call for a worldwide ban on stupid people like “Princess” here.

    • Silenttype78

      I read your other comments. I really like the one where you were all convinced that oil from Keystone would have no impact oil prices because it will “just be added to the global oil supply”.
      That pretty much tells me that your understanding of economics is pretty poor.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

      Your keyboard is made possible by petroleum by products. Please lead by example and cease using it.

    • RightThinking1

      Alison,

      I just have to ask…, WHERE did you learn that hemp ‘can be made into materials stronger than steel’. If it is so…, then you will have made a convert.

    • 97E

      Wow. The amount of stupid condensed into such a small post.

      You should be proud, Allison Foxall. Not many can match your feat of stupidity. Congratulations, you’re an idiot!

  • CoastalMaineBird

    Ok, they convinced me.
    We should NOT build the pipeline across I-4 in Tampa.

    • http://twitter.com/die_mich_zwei Spatial Awareness

      AAAahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! XD #NewScreen

  • The First Lady ; D

    So they put a lighted sign up…glance at it and move along people. Its only news if you make it so.

    • GaryTheBrave

      That’s what I was wondering. It wasn’t hanging down into traffic. It was terse so easily read at highway speeds. Other than being lit it wasn’t in the way of traffic at all. Don’t they have those LED billboards in Tampa? Those drivers would really be confused going through Las Vegas.

      • CatHerder

        I hate those blasted LED billboards. They’ll put the brightest crap on them at night and blind me or set them to change at distracting intervals.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      …Powered by EVIL BIG ENERGY, in one form or another… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Silenttype78

    What do these anti progress basement dwellers want us to power our economy with? We can’t all move in with our parents and spend our days smoking dope and bitching about our moms forgetting to pick up our organic figs and fair trade coffee.
    Fun fact-
    Increased corn production has caused a dead zone in the gulf while the Alaskan pipeline has increased moose population.

  • http://twitter.com/subliminal_e e.s.h.

    Climate change is happening. Grow up, stop name calling, and stat fighting its causes and preparing to deal with it. All these arguments about hypocrisy hold no weight. We live and work with what we have. Period. The message here is that a pipeline shipping toxic materials across the country over aquifers into the gulf coast is dangerous and short sided. Not only is the diluted bitumen filled with a number of toxic diluting agents its also highly acidic and abrasive making spills much more likely. In its first year of operation keystone 1 spilled 12 times. And guess what? We can’t clean it up properly when it does. I live in houston and know all about the refineries here. They are located in specific zones that are exempt from export taxes. I also know they are are aexpanding the panama canal in preparation for more oil exports from the u.s. All that being said the real issue is climate change. If we don’t reduce our emissions the ocean will become an acidic solution that no longer supports life. If that happens we are fucked. Really really fucked. So I ask, if that is even the minutest possibilty should we not do everything to avoid it? The children in the future will look back at the exploitation of oil and its long lasting impacts on the planet as the single most heinous period of history. Fyi it takes 1000 years for co2 to leave the environment. This is just he beginning. So fuck you 20th century thinkers. Grow up.

    • Silenttype78

      “Climate change is happening. Grow up, stop name calling, and stat fighting its causes and preparing to deal with it. All these arguments about hypocrisy hold no weight. We live and work with what we have. Period. ”

      Has climate change been happening recently? Or has it been changing like…for a long time?
      How is it that pointing out that those who stand to benefit financially and are loudest voices also live in multi million dollar mansions,damage the environment often with their jet setting lifestyles hold no weight? Either you are pro solutions or you are satisfied with the status quo.
      Your green gods and godesses are guilty of resource abuse. Until you people start calling out these frauds then you will continue to look like rubes.

      Since you are so offended by the practices going on in your state then why don’t you move? Oh……wait….let me guess…. Houston is where your parents basement is….amiright?

      • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

        Let me educate you a bit. Climate change has happened many times in the past, thought to be the purpose for some of the largest mass extinctions in geologic history actually. That has nothing to do with what is happening today. If you understand the science, it is not hard to distinguish between what naturally occurs in past climate changes, and what is occuring today due to our contributions. First you have to understand the percentage of contribution we have things such as the carbon dioxide or nitrogen cycles. In order to do that, you have to understand the dynamics of these cycles spanning over millions of years. Let me save you the trouble and tell you from my wasted years of studying this stuff has brought me to the conclusion that 1. Humans have a incredible impact on the environment including the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. For example, did you know that humans fixate more nitrogen in the atmosphere than the natural nitrogen cycle does? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GB00158/abstract
        2. The rate of increase (I know it’s math, but stick with me here), RATE of increase of CO2 is increasing faster than ever before in recorded history spanning back millions of years (with the possible exceptions of very short periods after volcanic erruptions or meteorites, which don’t even matter because they are not lasting and also have a immediate glaciation period after them due to sediment in the atmosphere blocking the sun). Now we’re talking rate here. That means that as long as the population of world increases at the rate it has been for decades, and the industrialization of the world increases at the same rate, the rate of atmospheric CO2 will increase to a level never seen before (especially considering the amount of trees we cut down that take up that CO2) in a very short period of time. You guys have a very narrow view of things, and of time. Just because it’s not blowing up in your face right now, you’re willing to ignore its existance. Yet you have no idea what it felt and looked like before the industrial revolution because you weren’t born. You can only understand in terms of your lifetime, which is such a short period of time when considering climate and geological changes. Thousands of species can die every year, millions of people relocated, as long as it’s not in your backyard, you’re willfully ignorant, even though the rest of the world not only sees it happening, but entire civilizations that have been around for thousands of years have to all a sudden relocate because their island states are becoming inundated due to rising sea levels (see global climate change and pacific island states), and entire cultures of people are forced to relocate. It’s convinient for you to say, “oh, it’s all natural” because to your knowledge it is. God forbid humans have such an enormous impact on the environment. Hate to bust your bubble, but we do. It’s a known fact. The dust bowl happened because of us. The rapid increase in temperatures recently, because of us. The massive extinction of species over the past decades, that’s us. Just because you don’t understand the consequences of certain actions, doesn’t make those consequences any less real. You can argue over the specific numbers like percentage of our contribution, whatever. What you can’t argue is whether or not we have a contribution. Because if you do, you simply do not understand the facts.

        • 97E

          And then idiots like YOU post.

          Oops?

          It’s been a long known fact that NOTHING short of an asteroid strike has contributed more to Mass Extinction Events than Volcanoes. The Dust Bowl was largely to do with overfarming and the effects on the atmosphere from the eruption of Krakatoa (decades later).

          Grow a clue and/or a brain.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      If you’re against Carbon Dioxide so much, STOP BREATHING! ZING!! POW!! BAM!! Jawamax 8<{D}

      • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

        John, He hates trees. He doesn’t want them to be able to breath.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kfentress Kevin Fentress

          Trees produce the same amount of CO2 as they consume when enough time is taken in consideration. This makes them a neutral entity when it comes to atmospheric CO2 concentration EXCEPT when you cut them down at extremely fast rates because they also act as carbon sinks (they contain CO2, cutting them down releases it). It also would work the other way, that if you grow trees at a fast enough rate, then the opposite would happen. However that has not happened ever since humans had something to do with it. Of course you would know that the whole trees use CO2 and humans breath CO2 arguments are really dumb if you were actually educated on the topic. It’s actually amusing to see the powerful politicians make the same stupid mistakes when making decisions that affect everyone on the planet…

    • Jack Deth

      And sometimes a douche bag is just a douche bag.

      The world has withstood volcanoes, earthquakes, wars, tsunamis and many nuclear explosions.

      It was here long before you were born. And will blissfully endure long after your inconsequential passing.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      The Panama Canal is being expanded by the Chinese to accommodate larger container ships. If it helps US oil exports that’s a secondary benefit.

      Climate changes all the time. Scammers try to make money off of it just like Rainmakers of the past.

    • Clayton Grant

      First you say “Grow up, stop name calling” then you say “So fuck you 20th century thinkers”
      .

      So, you’re not a “thinker” at all, just a regurgitation tool.
      .
      BTW, it’s “short sighted”, as in; not looking at the long term effects of something. Your primary education is a good example. Short sided is the bus you rode in on.

      • Canis Dirus

        Picking on the handicapped again? Lol.

        • Clayton Grant

          Yep … I’m going to heII.

    • milletime810

      Lol did this guy really say short sided? #doof

    • 97E

      First off, flagged for obscene language.

      Second, the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency said it was environmentally safe.

      Third, our children’s children will look back in history and determine the era where we let left-wing loons and enviro-N@zis dictate national policy as the blackest.

      Finally, YES, THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING! Guess what? THE CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING! THAT IS WHAT IT BLOODY DAMNED WELL DOES! YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE TO BACK UP YOUR “GLOBAL WARM… err CLIMATE CHANGE” THEORIES!

      The books were cooked by the small department at the University of East Anglia, the only people you Climate Hoax freaks got your data from.

      I think you twits with the severe cranial rectumitis are the ones desperately in need of growing up. Earth to Space Cadet Turd! Pro Tip! Mommy Government can’t take care of you forever! It’s time to move on and GET A JOB!

    • © Sponge

      No. You’re wrong. You are the one that needs to grow up. Name calling seems to be the only thing you understand, so get used to it. The hockey stick was false, the data was massively corrupted and the planet entered a cooling trend in the 90’s, so TRY AGAIN. You really should stop praying at The Temple of Gore. It’s not going to work out very well for you.

  • patriot fan

    I drove by this morning at about 7:15.The traffic was a little heavy but no big deal. I have seen it much worse. Don’t you love waking up in the morning in the greatest country in the history of the world, where you have the right to free speech and display your NO KEYSTONE PIPELINE to your heart’s desire! I LOVE AMERICA!

  • descolada9

    Exactly what jobs do these Occupy punks have that they can afford to put up signs like this or take the time to put them up?

  • DurkaDurka

    There’s no keystone pipeline going to Florida. WTF are they doing?

  • JR48

    Hey jokers, it’s supposed to go to TEXAS. LOL Why don’t you worry about about thing like invasive species in the Keys or somesuch?

  • JR48

    Hey jokers, it’s supposed to go to TEXAS. LOL Why don’t you worry about about thing like invasive species in the Keys or somesuch?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Fillow/577263865 Terry Fillow

    Port Arthur is a FOREIGN TRADE ZONE, they can export TAX FREE- tf

    2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation’s top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline’s capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free.

    http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01614

    Valero Energy Corporation, a top U.S. refiner and one of the main backers of the failed effort to kill California’s climate laws, is poised to produce Keystone XL tar sands fuel for tax-free export to foreign markets
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/10/366171/valero-poised-to-export-keystone-xl-crude-tax-free/

  • http://twitter.com/Thor_Odinson ThorOdinson

    Nothing quite says “I love the environment” like clogging up traffic and ensuring that thousands of automobiles continue to spew toxin into the environment that much longer. GOOD JOB, environmentalists!

  • Joel Klinepeter

    Gotta love that responsible journalism, traffic is ALWAYS backed up going into Tampa that time of day during the week. Today was no worse than any other rainy Wednesday morning.

  • Pat Arnold

    Yes, God forbid we do anything to create jobs or help the economy