I tend to look at the science and history of the issue. I look for that which strengthens the contentions on my side of the debate. Yes, there are things which will mitigate those findings but I investigate those contentions for veracity. Usually, I find that the contentions are false driven by politics and agendae. Global warming, as you have mentioned, is one of those issues. Upon investigation, one finds that the "models" will ignore the obvious -- the sun, sunspots, water vapor, history, etc. -- and concentrate on the peripheral causes. My problem is that they have been successful at the highest levels of government. Look at what Biden said in the debate:
IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?
BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Gov. Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
My contentions are that without "Big oil" -- and you will notice that I always enclose the words "Big oil" in quotes because "Big oil" is a disparaging term invented by the opponents of oil -- the war machine would have ground to a halt.
The production of materiel would have ground to a halt at home.
The delivery of the available war materiel to the warriors fighting the war would have ground to a halt.
According to
THIS SITE Germany accessed its oil from synthesizing, Rumania, Germany, Austria, and Poland.
Report on German oil production, by R. Holroyd
"Most of the Rumanian/ Hungarian oil products were supplied direct to
the armed forces in the Eastern areas [...] The total Rumanian crude
production was said to be roughly 6,000,000 tons/year. [...] German
oil production: 1,920,000 tons/yeare, some 8-900,000 came from the
Austrian fields, 6-700,000 tons/year from the Hanover district,
2000,000 tons/year from Heide and the remainder from Baden and the
Polish frontier area. The German crudes, particularly those from
Austria which contained only 5-7% petrol, were particularly good for
lubricating oil production"
Page 15 of pdf
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Bureau_of_Mines/info_circ/ic_7370/ic_7370_sec18.pdf
The site goes on to discuss the increasing role of synthetic fuels throughout the war.
Before WWII, the United States supplied 80% of Japan's oil.
THIS SITE discusses the sources of oil before and during the war. As I said, "Japan loaded the last of their petroleum into their ships and planes and struck out for Hawaii." The site confirms this:
The oil stock Japan had was only for a year and half, and time was running out. The Japanese leaders had to make up their minds as quickly as possible. If the war was unavoidable and they chose to fight, the longer they would wait the lesser the chance for victory would be because of the limited oil stock, which would be spent even during the peace time.
Your contention is that IF American oil companies COULD have sold oil to enemy nation states that they WOULD have sold oil to those enemy nation states. That may have been true in the larger scheme of things if a declared state of war had not existed. Roosevelt likely exceeded his authority with the Japanese oil embargo but that is a discussion for another day.
Seeing the debate from your side of the equation it could easily be stated "Big oil" caused WWII. They were the ones which supplied oil to the Japanese and got them addicted to oil. Once they were forcibly removed from the teat they became like any other addict taken off their substance and grabbed a gun and headed for the liquor store.
Your statement that "Big Oil had only one objective (as they do today)...make as much money as possible regardless of who they help and who they hinder." merely states the goal of capitalist entities in a capitalist system of which the United States is unashamedly included. I am a firm defender of the Capitalist system. Nothing else works better. Never has. Never will.
I have never been for depleting our resources before the other guy depletes his. I have been in favor of leaving our resources in the ground and using up the other guys resources.
However, the world economy and the upsurge in enemy nation states which wish the United States to be destroyed, and using the money we buy their products to that end, I would suggest that now is the time to start using our resources and developing them into viable sources of energy to mitigate this threat.
You asked for viable alternatives besides drilling for oil?
Coal, of which we have centuries worth;
Nuclear, which is the only "clean" source of energy;
Shale oil which was not viable when oil was $20 per barrel;
Hemp, which grows in poor soil and does not require the displacement of food producing lands;
And my personal favorite of which you may be unaware,
THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZATION which is not viable at this time but holds great promise.
So there ya have it. It is not like I haven't done my homework.
Why bother
