N.M. Dem turns on Biden on threat to destroy oil/gas industry

[RichA]

The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.

Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."

[kensi]

On 10/24/2020 12:34 AM, RichA wrote:
> a non-existent problem, "global warming."

Wrong.

--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate

[RichA]

Global warming theory is based on massaged-data models and the observance of trends which are too shot in meteorological terms to mean anything. Temps rise for 20-30 years means nothing. Come back in 500-1000, then if there is a trend, it'll be proven.

[trotsky]

On 10/23/20 11:34 PM, RichA wrote:
> The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.
>
> Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."

Anonyshit says what?

[Adam H. Kerman]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.

>Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."

Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
Oklahoma. Its myriad problems are nothing to do with global warming.

I don't find that acceptable. There is not now and never has been any
reason to allow any industry to pollute, given that we know better. So
what if mitigating pollution increases their costs? They shouldn't be
allowed to shift costs to everyone else.

[ZZyXX]

that's the same technique the anti-vaxers used

[kensi]

On 10/24/2020 4:06 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 01:32:21 UTC-4, kensi wrote:
>> On 10/24/2020 12:34 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> a non-existent problem, "global warming."
>> Wrong.
>

> Global warming theory is based on massaged-data models

Wrong.

> and the observance of trends which are too shot in meteorological terms
> to mean anything.

Wrong.

> Temps rise for 20-30 years means nothing. Come back in 500-1000, then

> if there is a trend, it'll be too late.

FTFY.

[kensi]

We'll make a decent leftie out of you yet.

[RichA]

On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 10:51:11 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.
>
> >Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."
> Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
> Oklahoma.

No, it does not create a LOT of groundwater pollution (and green LIE) and the "earthquakes" aren't exactly 9.0 on the Richter scale and are harmless.

[kensi]

On 10/25/2020 1:00 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 10:51:11 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.
>>
>>> Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."
>> Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
>> Oklahoma.
>
> No, it does not create a LOT of groundwater pollution

Wrong.

> and the "earthquakes" are harmless.

Wrong.

[Adam H. Kerman]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 10:51:11 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.

>>>Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."
>>Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
>>Oklahoma.

>No, it does not create a LOT of groundwater pollution (and green LIE)

Listen to me, Rich. If I rely upon groundwater, and fracking has forced
pollutants into my source of drinking water, that is entirely
unacceptable. Someone would have to be pretty stupid or self destructive to
accept such a situation as it's contrary to interest. And no, the
groundwater pollution isn't just nearby. It can be some distance away.

It's not worth doing.

>and the "earthquakes" aren't exactly 9.0 on the Richter scale and are
>harmless.

An earthquake in an area that doesn't get earthquakes due to tectonic
shifts is outrageous. There aren't a lot of 9.0 earthquakes anyway,
except the ones caused by global warming.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <rn1f0q$ipi$2...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.
>
>>Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."
>
>Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
>Oklahoma.

Once again, you are wrong and wrong again.

--
Democrats and the liberal media hate President Trump more than they
love this country.

[kensi]

On 10/26/2020 8:02 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <rn1f0q$ipi$2...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The industry in 2018 was worth $200 billion and provided 8.8 million jobs.
>>
>>> Biden wants to kill it to fight a non-existent problem, "global warming."
>>
>> Fracking creates lots of groundwater pollution and earthquakes in
>> Oklahoma.
>
> Once again, you are wrong and wrong again.

Since Verman is always wrong, and Ubi is always wrong, I have
occasionally wondered what would happen if they ever contradicted one
another.

Well, now I know. The universe didn't implode into a singularity or wink
out, but it did find a way to resolve the paradox: it let Verman be
correct just this once.

So, apparently Ubi is always-wronger than Verman is.

Must have been all that Fox Kool-Ade.

*snicker*