So about that Global Warming thing....

[Cry Havoc]

Forecast 4 days ago for May 27th: 78 degrees.

Current conditions in Chicago:

44 degrees.

Feels like 37.

Expected high: 54.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying it.

[peewee's lovechild]

It was 105 in Brownsville on Saturday, that was at 5:00 pm.
I didn't dare go out before then.

Sunday night, it was 97 at 9:00 pm.

Monday morning, it was a breezy 94 with 99% humidity.

So, go fuck yourself.

[Cry Havoc]

It was 105 in Brownsville on Saturday, that was at 5:00 pm.
I didn't dare go out before then.

Sunday night, it was 97 at 9:00 pm.

Monday morning, it was a breezy 94 with 99% humidity.

So, go fuck yourself.

Wow, Texas is hot?

Really?

That's completely unexpected. Towns closer to the Equator being hotter totally proves the existence of Global Warming.

[leemajors]

record highs all across the state last week.

[peewee's lovechild]

Wow, Texas is hot?

Really?

That's completely unexpected. Towns closer to the Equator being hotter totally proves the existence of Global Warming.


Fuck face, it usually gets in the triple digits from July to early September in Brownsville.

The heat is two months early.

Fuck face.

[Cry Havoc]

Fuck face, it usually gets in the triple digits from July to early September in Brownsville.

The heat is two months early.

Fuck face.

:lol

Chill man, I was just making a point. THIS IZ SRS THRED.

[Richard Cranium]

I'm already hot!!

[BigZak]

whether it's happening is not the question, the glaciers are melting much faster than they were 20 years ago...what is in question and up for debate is whether we as humans have any affect on it one way or another...

either way...we are all dead before it matters...but our kids...grandkids...i pray for them...

[peewee's lovechild]

...but our kids...grandkids...i pray for them...

True.

[JoeChalupa]

Of course the earth is changing just like it has since the beginning.
But I think even my kids and grandkids will not see any changes soon for the better. I have a feeling all hell will break loose and things are going to get much worse before they get any better.

[Cry Havoc]

whether it's happening is not the question, the glaciers are melting much faster than they were 20 years ago...what is in question and up for debate is whether we as humans have any affect on it one way or another...

either way...we are all dead before it matters...but our kids...grandkids...i pray for them...

+1, this is my exact opinion on the subject.

30 years ago scientists were convinced we were heading for an ice age.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

global warming. the y2k of today.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, it doesn't really matter since both supporters and opponents of global warming will be long gone when we, if any of us are left, find out the truth.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

IMHO, it doesn't really matter since both supporters and opponents of global warming will be long gone when we, if any of us are left, find out the truth.exactly what the government is BANKing on.

[Slydragon]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a841/a841_bm.gif

On a side note does the guy in the middle kinda look like mouse?

http://www.tshirthell.com/images/index_logo.jpg

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a841/a841_bm.gif

that's awesome. that will be my next purchase.

[tlongII]

whether it's happening is not the question, the glaciers are melting much faster than they were 20 years ago...what is in question and up for debate is whether we as humans have any affect on it one way or another...

either way...we are all dead before it matters...but our kids...grandkids...i pray for them...

Dude, that just isn't true. There are more glaciers growing in size than shrinking. The thoery that man is causing global warming is liberal bullshit.

[E20]

It's fucking cold as hell here. If Globabl Warming is true, it won't affect my generation or the next two and I couldn't give two fucks about them.

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

Dude, that just isn't true. There are more glaciers growing in size than shrinking. The thoery that man is causing global warming is liberal bullshit.

Science is not a political thing so just leave it at that. Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling. But some scientist attribute some changes to pollutants and while I won't totally dismiss those arguments I feel the evidence has not proven "Global Warming".

[peewee's lovechild]

An Inconvenient Truth . . . . watch it sometime.

[Nbadan]

Global warming is already effecting the earth..

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/3/3a/Muir_Glacier.jpg/350px-Muir_Glacier.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/8/8c/Pedersen_Glacier.jpg/350px-Pedersen_Glacier.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:McCarty_Glacier_jpg

A lot of people in the Western U.S. states (and other parts of the world, especially China) depend on snowfall to fill water reservoirs for farming, drinking, etc...in the next few years (yes, in our lifetimes) we could see this water resource depleted as avg. global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere increase and that is when the real shit starts...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

An Inconvenient Truth . . . . watch it sometime.
:lmao
that was a funny slide show. especially when he used the forklift. when his home was exposed as not being global friendly right after his slide show was released that totally made me think he doesn't practice what he was preaches. i can't believe the jackass won a nobel peace prize.

[Extra Stout]

These temperature anomalies right now have more to do with the jetstream and with a high-pressure system than they do with global warming or global cooling.

Weather is not climate. Despite my reiterating that several thousand times, I just don't think most people have the cognitive capacity to comprehend it.

With respect to preventing global warming, unless your goal is just to do something symbolic as a gesture to exculpate yourself before your descendants, you will accomplish nothing. Go politely explain to highly populous developing nations like China and India that while you are allowed to enjoy a comfortable Western lifestyle, they cannot. They need to remain dirt-poor so that their carbon footprint stays small and you can enjoy affluence at their expense. Alternately, you can explain to them that they all need to kill themselves.

[RandomGuy]

zORv8wwiadQ

I find it astounding how many people have sucked in the "global warming is liberal crap" koolade.

I predict this thread will be moved to the politics section shortly, and that the a certain dishonest hack will attempt to provide some science-y cover for the anti-environmentalist crowd, much in the same way that a certain ex-physics professor does for the 9-11 "truther" movement.

Debates on this stuff always end up badly, and the biggest casualty ends up being common sense.

1) It's all about risk management.
2) If you can't admit that, whatever you believe, there is a possibility that you could be wrong, GTFO and let the grown-ups figure out what to do.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao
that was a funny slide show. especially when he used the forklift. when his home was exposed as not being global friendly right after his slide show was released that totally made me think he doesn't practice what he was preaches. i can't believe the jackass won a nobel peace prize.

Logical fail.

Being a hypocrite about something doesn't mean that the person is wrong.

If an herion addict told you not to do herion because it is bad for you, can one logically conclude that herion is harmless?

[ClingingMars]

ZXrc1XZayp4

0cElkco-hDk

hD0_W582HyM

- Mars

[peewee's lovechild]

:lmao
that was a funny slide show. especially when he used the forklift. when his home was exposed as not being global friendly right after his slide show was released that totally made me think he doesn't practice what he was preaches. i can't believe the jackass won a nobel peace prize.


Who the fuck gives a shit about what his home is like.

He offered empirical proof as to what's been happening.

If you want to have a discussion as to how energy efficient his house is, start another thread.

[peewee's lovechild]

These temperature anomalies right now have more to do with the jetstream and with a high-pressure system than they do with global warming or global cooling.



Stout, I respect your biblical knowledge, but this is about our climate getting increasingly worse. To say it's just weather is a bit of a stretch.

[ClingingMars]

Who the fuck gives a shit about what his home is like.

He offered empirical proof as to what's been happening.

If you want to have a discussion as to how energy efficient his house is, start another thread.

so therefore it must not be important because he doesn't take action in his own life.

- Mars

[midgetonadonkey]

Stout, I respect your biblical knowledge, but this is about our climate getting increasingly worse. To say it's just weather is a bit of a stretch.


Come on dude, it's just plain stupid to think that over 100 years of burning coal, oil and gas would create dangerous emissions that would change the chemical balance of the atmosphere and create a higher global average temperature, which in turn melts glaciers at both poles and dumps more water in our oceans.

That's just a ridiculous way of thinking. Fucking liberals.

[Shelly]

http://blog.sbs-rocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/the-end-is-near.jpg

[ClingingMars]

also:

H8e2liqoDok

- Mars

[Cry Havoc]

These temperature anomalies right now have more to do with the jetstream and with a high-pressure system than they do with global warming or global cooling.

Weather is not climate. Despite my reiterating that several thousand times, I just don't think most people have the cognitive capacity to comprehend it.

With respect to preventing global warming, unless your goal is just to do something symbolic as a gesture to exculpate yourself before your descendants, you will accomplish nothing. Go politely explain to highly populous developing nations like China and India that while you are allowed to enjoy a comfortable Western lifestyle, they cannot. They need to remain dirt-poor so that their carbon footprint stays small and you can enjoy affluence at their expense. Alternately, you can explain to them that they all need to kill themselves.

My point is that currently, Meteorologists are unable to accurately predict a forecast beyond a 3 day cycle, and even that is worthless at times. I've taken courses in advanced Meteorology in college, and the first thing that the Professor told us when we reached the prediction section (as opposed to analysis of past/current weather) is that forecast models for more than 4-5 days out are completely inept. We simply do not have the ability to account for the exhaustive number of variables in the atmosphere.

However, this group of people (yes, I'm aware that climatology is different than meteorology, but they are inter-related) are able to ascertain the current state of the entire planet based on a scant amount of weather data... we haven't even had reliable anemometers for more than 80 years! Consider that: A hundred and fifty years ago, we couldn't even measure wind speed with a high degree of accuracy. To think we can forecast the future model of the planet (~6,000,000,000 years old) based on that kind of "scientific evidence" would be like saying we have two polymers and a few nucleotides, so from that we can guess what the rest of the DNA strand is going to be composed of.

Perhaps I'm just a skeptic, but I need at least a few hundred years of data before I'm remotely convinced that we're directly impacting anything. ~90 years of truly reliable weather records is nowhere close.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

For those of you who haven't done so, I'd recommend reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. He put a ton of research into the novel, most of which is included in the back of the book.

Although he recommends that we do all we can to protect the earth and its resources, his ultimate conclusion is that global warming is not influenced significantly by anything man is doing on earth, and that we are, in fact, soon (within the next 10,000 years or so) to be in another ice age.

Having looked at both sides of the argument myself, I tend to side with Mr. Crichton.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Logical fail.

Being a hypocrite about something doesn't mean that the person is wrong.

If an herion addict told you not to do herion because it is bad for you, can one logically conclude that herion is harmless?
hmmm. show me a vegan that eats red meat and i'll go with your logic

[SRJ]

Mars and Jupiter have been warming too. Must be a huge carbon footprint on those planets.

[v2freak]

My problem is, better to believe in it and have it not be true than the other way around. Some people are just unwilling to do the simplest things, like drive less. I gave a presentation on global warming once, and many people were victims of the diseased thinking "I won't make a difference...I'm just one person."

[Cry Havoc]

Mars and Jupiter have been warming too. Must be a huge carbon footprint on those planets.

Shit! When did they get MTV and Hummers!?!? :(


My problem is, better to believe in it and have it not be true than the other way around. Some people are just unwilling to do the simplest things, like drive less. I gave a presentation on global warming once, and many people were victims of the diseased thinking "I won't make a difference...I'm just one person."

You can still support the idea of being kind to the environment without predicting Armageddon. They are not mutually inclusive terms.

[Nbadan]

The Shellyfication of the U.S.


KfiT3XqtcbE

likely explains why the Club is so popular too....

[Nbadan]

Mars and Jupiter have been warming too. Must be a huge carbon footprint on those planets.

Of all the stupid reasons to dismiss global climate change this has to be the most ignorant....

[Shelly]

The Shellyfication of the U.S.


KfiT3XqtcbE

likely explains why the Club is so popular too....

Sorry. I'll go put on my tinfoil hat now.

[Nbadan]

no problem....it's likely the hair dye.....

[Cry Havoc]

Of all the stupid reasons to dismiss global climate change this has to be the most ignorant....

You know, unless solar output has increased by any measurable percentage in the last few centuries. You are aware that the Sun is the single greatest cause of weather and climate on this planet, right? If it suddenly outputs even a FRACTION less than it is now, this global warming hypothesis falls into the trash can and people start forecasting the impending doom of the next ice age. Again.

[CuckingFunt]

There's no doubt in my mind that climate change is an inevitable part of the fact we inhabit a big ol' rock that is inherently unstable and subject to long term change. It's the nature of the beast. But to completely dismiss the fact that a) we humans are living in such a way that quickens that change, and b) we could be living in such a way that makes our impact less dramatic than it is currently is more than a little ignorant.

Put a fish in a tank, and it's going to shit in the water. Allow that fish the ability to take more food than it needs, and it's going to shit even more. Either way the result is water that gets cloudy a lot faster than it would have with no fish, but we still have some level of control over how filthy it gets and how quickly it happens.

[Nbadan]

You know, unless solar output has increased by any measurable percentage in the last few centuries. You are aware that the Sun is the single greatest cause of weather and climate on this planet, right? If it suddenly outputs even a FRACTION less than it is now, this global warming hypothesis falls into the trash can and people start forecasting the impending doom of the next ice age. Again.

Myth......solar radiation has been in decline, but temps continue to increase..


One paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays.[49] A 2007 paper found that in the last 20 years there has been no significant link between changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth and cloudiness and temperature.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

[v2freak]

Shit! When did they get MTV and Hummers!?!? :(



You can still support the idea of being kind to the environment without predicting Armageddon. They are not mutually inclusive terms.

True. What would being kind to the environment entail?

[SRJ]

Of all the stupid reasons to dismiss global climate change this has to be the most ignorant....

Thanks for the rebuke, but I'd prefer a rebuttal.

[SRJ]

Science is not a political thing so just leave it at that.

ROFL

[BacktoBasics]

Global warming is already effecting the earth..

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/3/3a/Muir_Glacier.jpg/350px-Muir_Glacier.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/8/8c/Pedersen_Glacier.jpg/350px-Pedersen_Glacier.jpg

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:McCarty_Glacier_jpg

A lot of people in the Western U.S. states (and other parts of the world, especially China) depend on snowfall to fill water reservoirs for farming, drinking, etc...in the next few years (yes, in our lifetimes) we could see this water resource depleted as avg. global temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere increase and that is when the real shit starts...

I don't know what the problem is both those places look a thousand times better now than before. Even that red X

[Extra Stout]

Stout, I respect your biblical knowledge, but this is about our climate getting increasingly worse. To say it's just weather is a bit of a stretch.
Climate is a long-term phenomenon. Global warming is a worldwide long-term phenomenon. You cannot extrapolate from an unusually hot day in San Antonio to reinforce global warming any more than you can use a cold day in Chicago to debunk it.

Weather is the Spurs losing by 30 in Game 2 or winning by 19 in Game 3. Climate is averaging 58 wins over Tim Duncan's career and winning 4 titles in 9 years. Get it?

[Nbadan]

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

On Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting.

[Cry Havoc]

Myth......solar radiation has been in decline, but temps continue to increase..



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

Again, this is reliant on 30 years of data. The fact that, statistically speaking, 30 years of data is practically nothing when talking about long-term climate change is the relevance I'm speaking to. We are absolutely clueless at times when it comes to forecasting short-term weather patterns -- to say nothing of taking all the variables into accounting for a massive climate shift.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Mars and Jupiter have been warming too. Must be a huge carbon footprint on those planets.
funny you mention that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm

[Cry Havoc]

funny you mention that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm

But solar output is decreasing! That's unpossible!

[tlongII]

An Inconvenient Truth . . . . watch it sometime.

That documentary is a bunch of crap.

[tlongII]

You know, unless solar output has increased by any measurable percentage in the last few centuries. You are aware that the Sun is the single greatest cause of weather and climate on this planet, right? If it suddenly outputs even a FRACTION less than it is now, this global warming hypothesis falls into the trash can and people start forecasting the impending doom of the next ice age. Again.

Exactly! I am all for being environmentally sensitive, but this bullshit about man creating global warming has got to stop.

[td4mvp21]

If anything, weird weather (that cold for May) adds even more proof for global warming.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm of the opinion that as much trash, pollutants and other gases humans have created and passed into the environment I find it easier to believe that humans HAVE had an effect on the environment rather than not. I'm not so sure about global warming but humans sure as hell have changed the landscape and rivers that once ran clear now are deadly and chemical waste has caused birth defects.

Global warming? I don't know but I find it hard to believe that humans have not had some type of effect.

But I could be wrong.

[Twisted_Dawg]

It used to be that a thread on religion would incite emotiones...now it is a thread on climate change.

[Cry Havoc]

If anything, weird weather (that cold for May) adds even more proof for global warming.

Circular logic. Why is the weather crazy? Global warming. How do we know there's global warming? Why, the crazy weather of course!

[midgetonadonkey]

That documentary is a bunch of crap.

Show me scientific proof that it is a bunch of crap. Or should I just take your word for it?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

It was 73 in Dallas today for a high. Fuck Al Gore.

[T Park]

Its down to the high 40s tonight in St Louis.

Global warming my fucking fat white ass.

[midgetonadonkey]

Its down to the high 40s tonight in St Louis.

Global warming my fucking fat white ass.

Your white ass is extremely fat.

But just because it's it in the 40s in St. Louis doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.

I would go into the logic of the burning of renewable resources and the emissions they create and go into the atmosphere but I'm sure all those words are way too big for a carny to understand.

Let me try to simplify it....

You burn gas...gas let out smoke...smoke to go air...air get polluted...polluted air cause atmosphere to change....atmosphere keep hot air in planet...hot air melt glaciers...melted glaciers fill ocean...overfilled ocean plus hot air equals terrible storms.

Must I simplify for the uneducated???

[T Park]

Your white ass is extremely fat.

But just because it's it in the 40s in St. Louis doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.

I would go into the logic of the burning of renewable resources and the emissions they create and go into the atmosphere but I'm sure all those words are way too big for a carny to understand.

Let me try to simplify it....

You burn gas...gas let out smoke...smoke to go air...air get polluted...polluted air cause atmosphere to change....atmosphere keep hot air in planet...hot air melt glaciers...melted glaciers fill ocean...overfilled ocean plus hot air equals terrible storms.

Must I simplify for the uneducated???


glaciers in other parts of the world get thicker

ocean waters are not rising and are in fact getting cooler.

Buying into one of the biggest hoaxes of all time makes you the bigger idiot.

[midgetonadonkey]

glaciers in other parts of the world get thicker

ocean waters are not rising and are in fact getting cooler.

Buying into one of the biggest hoaxes of all time makes you the bigger idiot.

Send me scientific data proving that waters are not rising and not getting cooler. Also prove to me that global warming is a hoax.

Seriously, do you not believe that our burning of fuels and the emissions that come with it are not possible?

If you seriously believe that then you are a fucking stupid ass. You can't believe the burning of a bunch of fossil fuels are not damaging the earth but you can believe a magic man can rise from the dead is possible? That is incredibly stupid.

Our abuse of the atmosphere cannot cause global warming, yet a magic man i n the sky can be crucified and rise from the dead to be a water walking ghost, is possible.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Trainwreck2100]

Its fucking hot over here

[T Park]

Send me scientific data proving that waters are not rising and not getting cooler. Also prove to me that global warming is a hoax.

Seriously, do you not believe that our burning of fuels and the emissions that come with it are not possible?

If you seriously believe that then you are a fucking stupid ass. You can't believe the burning of a bunch of fossil fuels are not damaging the earth but you can believe a magic man can rise from the dead is possible? That is incredibly stupid.

Our abuse of the atmosphere cannot cause global warming, yet a magic man i n the sky can be crucified and rise from the dead to be a water walking ghost, is possible.

That doesn't make any sense.

I've posted professors and lots of links in previous threads, because you can't use the fucking search function its not my fault.

Hell the fucking creator of the weather channel says its a huge fucking hoax.

[TDMVPDPOY]

its fukn cold here, autumn/winter season atm....

[v2freak]

Global Warming does not mean that every place on earth will heat up. Scientists explain that the effects of weather are inconsistent in that each place will be affected differently, but that overall, these places will be affected. One area may get too much rainfall while others may not get any at all. This is an example of an extreme weather irregularity. I thought that in the wake of the weather-monstrocity Hurricane Katrina, more people would be willing to accept the consequences of human "innovation."

I asked what being kind to the environment would entail. Recycling, driving less, turning off your lights when you're not using them and buying produce from your local farmer are all great, and not too far away from what people who want to stop Global Warming - like Mr. Gore - are asking. Even if you don't believe in it, isn't it better to do all of these things just to be safe? No one is asking the average person to perfect an alternate power source - leave that to the scientists (who need funding!). Everyone has a part in this.

[peewee's lovechild]

so therefore it must not be important because he doesn't take action in his own life.

- Mars


First of all, his house is as big as a small country.
Of course he's going to have a high energy bill.

Secondly, I don't give a fuck what he does.

How the fuck is that going to change empirical evidence?

[peewee's lovechild]

hmmm. show me a vegan that eats red meat and i'll go with your logic

Seriously, you can stop posting now.

That was just fucking stupid.

[peewee's lovechild]

Climate is a long-term phenomenon. Global warming is a worldwide long-term phenomenon. You cannot extrapolate from an unusually hot day in San Antonio to reinforce global warming any more than you can use a cold day in Chicago to debunk it.

Weather is the Spurs losing by 30 in Game 2 or winning by 19 in Game 3. Climate is averaging 58 wins over Tim Duncan's career and winning 4 titles in 9 years. Get it?

Nobody is saying that one day or one year of climate change is the reason for global warming.

The fact that it's happened in just a few decades, since man began emitting carbon at increasingly outrageous levels, is the argument here.

[peewee's lovechild]

glaciers in other parts of the world get thicker

ocean waters are not rising and are in fact getting cooler.

Buying into one of the biggest hoaxes of all time makes you the bigger idiot.

Where's the proof, or are you just talking out of your extremely large white ass?

[peewee's lovechild]

I've posted professors and lots of links in previous threads, because you can't use the fucking search function its not my fault.

Hell the fucking creator of the weather channel says its a huge fucking hoax.


Your extremely large white ass won't let you post links to your oh-so-credible argument?

[tlongII]

Show me scientific proof that it is a bunch of crap. Or should I just take your word for it?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

[peewee's lovechild]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth


Pffffft, all that says is that the GOVERNMENT disagreed.

The fucking government.
And, that's the British government.

By the way, I found it funny that in the middle of that so-called article there's a hyperlink to an SUV ad.

Of course it would.

[SAGambler]

record highs all across the state last week.

But keep in mind that "record highs" are only "since they began keeping records of such things".

It doesn't really mean "record highs" in the sense that Al Gore wants you to think.

Climate change is a fact of life on this planet. Climate change has been responsible for the disappearance of other civilizations throughout the centuries. No doubt, we are currently in a climate change. But I believe "global warming" is a misnomer.

[Don Quixote]

Ahhhhh! The World Is Burning!!

We're All Going To Die!!

[dickface]

GFjWjAz49Z4

[RandomGuy]

Logical fail.

Being a hypocrite about something doesn't mean that the person is wrong.

If an herion addict told you not to do herion because it is bad for you, can one logically conclude that herion is harmless?
hmmm. show me a vegan that eats red meat and i'll go with your logic

um, yeah.

This isn't my "logic" this is a very good example of something that ISN'T logical, and is one of the most commonly accepted ways to make a logical mistake.

If you like I can show you a link to a much more brainy bit from a philosophy website.

BUT

If you don't want to accept that it is illogical, THEN you must try heroin.

Because I can produce at least one herion addict who tells you herion is bad for you. If hypocrisy makes what a person says wrong, then the herion addict is lying.

Have fun with that.

[RandomGuy]

As I have said many times before:

Mad-made global warming or not? It doesn't fucking matter. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916)

Since noneyall bothered to actually watch the video, I will give a quick synopsis.

1) We can't know for 100% certain whether man-made global warming is really going to hurt us.
2) We DO know some of the possible outcomes.
3) If one objectively analyzes the possible outcomes of our actions, the costs of doing nothing and being wrong are FAR greater than the costs of doing something and being wrong.

Think of it like the descision to buy a health insurance policy.

If you assume you will get sick, buy the policy, and turn out to be wrong, you are down a bit economically.

If you don't buy the policy, and then get REALLY sick, your family's finances are f***ed.

This boils it down to the most simple of options.

B1PPY6ElKZM

Watch the video.

[BradLohaus]

Here's a greenhouse calculator that tells you when you should die so you don't use more than your fair share of the earth's resources. I should have died at age 12.

Find Out When You Should Die!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Send me scientific data proving that waters are not rising and not getting cooler. Also prove to me that global warming is a hoax.

Seriously, do you not believe that our burning of fuels and the emissions that come with it are not possible?

If you seriously believe that then you are a fucking stupid ass. You can't believe the burning of a bunch of fossil fuels are not damaging the earth but you can believe a magic man can rise from the dead is possible? That is incredibly stupid.

Our abuse of the atmosphere cannot cause global warming, yet a magic man i n the sky can be crucified and rise from the dead to be a water walking ghost, is possible.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm a little confused...so you're saying that TPark should believe in global warming because he believes in God? If T is capable of wrapping his mind around the existence of God, maybe he's also capable of seeing that the earth is going to return to an ice age long before greenhouse gases heat it to levels that kill the planet.

Midge, you obviously believe what is easy to believe and that's great for you. Some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture, and that's fine that you're not there yet.

[T Park]

Thank you Ed.

I've just heard from way too many experts, on the subject of global warming to believe that man caused is the reason. Yes the earth is warming, but to believe that its ALL our fault, in my opinion is short sighted and arrogant. I'm all for being better to the earth, but to do it to the point where it hurts our way of life and hurst businesses and lives of people is wrong.

[ElMuerto]

Thank you Ed.

I've just heard from way too many experts, on the subject of global warming to believe that man caused is the reason. Yes the earth is warming, but to believe that its ALL our fault, in my opinion is short sighted and arrogant. I'm all for being better to the earth, but to do it to the point where it hurts our way of life and hurst businesses and lives of people is wrong.

Ah, so the fact that being better to the earht hurts YOUR way of life and hurts YOUR businesses is the real issue. If I were you I'd be more worried about the heat AFTER life.

[T Park]

Ah, so the fact that being better to the earht hurts YOUR way of life and hurts YOUR businesses is the real issue. If I were you I'd be more worried about the heat AFTER life.

The overreaction from EPA regulations is what is hurting businesses across the country. A diesel engine costs twice as much as it did in 2002 due to regulations that were supposedly not gonna effect the price one bit.

[CuckingFunt]

Thank you Ed.

I've just heard from way too many experts, on the subject of global warming to believe that man caused is the reason. Yes the earth is warming, but to believe that its ALL our fault, in my opinion is short sighted and arrogant. I'm all for being better to the earth, but to do it to the point where it hurts our way of life and hurst businesses and lives of people is wrong.

Lives of which people, exactly?

Because, based on your posts alone, I can pretty much guarantee that your preferred way of life, which you don't want to sacrifice, is hurting a lot of people in other parts of the world. Big business, free trade, globalization, mass consumption, and overuse of nonrenewable natural resources = environmental racism, ecocide, famine, and tremendous human rights violations in the global south.

That's the thing that drives me insane about the global warming argument. Is global warming an issue? Yes. But it's become so politicized that people can latch on to that one little thing and completely ignore the fact that there are things we can/should change in order to improve the lives of people throughout the world RIGHT NOW. "Global warming" is not the only reason that we -- as individuals, as a country, and as a global society -- should be making a concerted effort to live/spend/consume more responsibly.

[T Park]

Lives of which people, exactly?


Alot of truck drivers that I know of are losing their jobs because of all this stuff....

Once again, I get flamed for my views because I look at it from a business person's point of view, and right now, people hate those kind of people right now.

[JoeChalupa]

Alot of truck drivers that I know of are losing their jobs because of all this stuff....

Once again, I get flamed for my views because I look at it from a business person's point of view, and right now, people hate those kind of people right now.

As Spock would say, "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

But I understand your point.

[T Park]

As Spock would say, "It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

But I understand your point.


To make the many sacrifice because some scientists who sell out for money and it hasn't been proven without a doubt the science they practice is THE absolte 100% truth?

Sorry I can't go with that.

[Bigzax]

don't worry bout it...gas prices will keep rising and we'll all be driving 4 cylinder standard transmissions soon and doing our part...like it or not...

[JoeChalupa]

To make the many sacrifice because some scientists who sell out for money and it hasn't been proven without a doubt the science they practice is THE absolte 100% truth?

Sorry I can't go with that.

Well I recycle, don't litter, am for restrictions on pollutants not because of what some scientist says but because I feel it is the right thing to do.
But that is just me.

[T Park]

Well I recycle, don't litter, am for restrictions on pollutants not because of what some scientist says but because I feel it is the right thing to do.
But that is just me.

Restrictions are fine, its proved without a doubt 100% it helps, and, you have a cost effective solution to it.

[Bigzax]

well i recycle and don't litter...but i over eat too...and if i don't give a shit about my health like the majority of america when i KNOW it's taking years off my life, why should i give a crap about the environment.../toungueincheek

[peewee's lovechild]

Midge, you obviously believe what is easy to believe and that's great for you. Some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture, and that's fine that you're not there yet.

So, believing in a god is seeing the big picture, but believing that the Earth is warming faster than it ever has due to human intervention is not seeing the bigger picutre?

You are confused.

[peewee's lovechild]

Thank you Ed.

I've just heard from way too many experts, on the subject of global warming to believe that man caused is the reason. Yes the earth is warming, but to believe that its ALL our fault, in my opinion is short sighted and arrogant. I'm all for being better to the earth, but to do it to the point where it hurts our way of life and hurst businesses and lives of people is wrong.

Where did you hear about this, at the National Convention for Carnies?

Anyway, if you really believe that there's no consequence to all the carbon emitions that have increased exponentially over the years, you truly are an idiot.

Talk about short sighted and ignorant.

I realize that such a conversation is above your IQ, but I didn't realize that your IQ was that of wallpaper.

And, just how exaclty is living a greener life going to hurt our way of life. Do you even realize how stupid that statement was?

[peewee's lovechild]

The overreaction from EPA regulations is what is hurting businesses across the country. A diesel engine costs twice as much as it did in 2002 due to regulations that were supposedly not gonna effect the price one bit.

And, since 90% of the population drives a diesel vehicle, your argument holds so much water.

[peewee's lovechild]

To make the many sacrifice because some scientists who sell out for money and it hasn't been proven without a doubt the science they practice is THE absolte 100% truth?

Sorry I can't go with that.

What "many" are sacrificing as you say?

[RandomGuy]

That's the thing that drives me insane about the global warming argument. Is global warming an issue? Yes. But it's become so politicized that people can latch on to that one little thing and completely ignore the fact that there are things we can/should change in order to improve the lives of people throughout the world RIGHT NOW. "Global warming" is not the only reason that we -- as individuals, as a country, and as a global society -- should be making a concerted effort to live/spend/consume more responsibly.


Amen, sister.

High energy costs will force energy efficiency and a LOT of "green" solutions on us. This will be much to the horror of many conservadrones who blather about "free markets" without really understanding them.

I find it a rather delicious irony that it will be the free market that drives the push towards being "green". Even more delicious is the fact that the bad ol' socialists in Europe have been pushing "green" agendas for a while, and Europe is several steps ahead of us in that regard. mmmm delicious irony :hungry:

[starwolf]

come on...carbon taxs...coal power stations not being built...all for 300 ppm gas taht has gone up a few %

[T Park]

And, since 90% of the population drives a diesel vehicle, your argument holds so much water.

:lol

First off, 90% of the population doesn't drive diesel engines.

Second, once again, what part of, the EPA's gross restrictions on the engines is strapping businesses don't you understand?

[tlongII]

Hopefully this country will soon realize we need nuclear power.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Forecast 4 days ago for May 27th: 78 degrees.

Current conditions in Chicago:

44 degrees.

Feels like 37.

Expected high: 54.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying it.

Wow, what an insightful repudiation! :rolleyes

I'll just say this - people trust their accountant to do their taxes, their mechanic to fix their car, etc. - every day every one of us trusts myriad people to do their jobs properly.

However, when it comes to thousands of the brightest minds on the planet, from the world's best universities and scientific institutions, who have compiled tens of thousands of open-source peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting the changing climate, nah, they must be wrong. :bang

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Thank you Ed.

I've just heard from way too many experts, on the subject of global warming to believe that man caused is the reason. Yes the earth is warming, but to believe that its ALL our fault, in my opinion is short sighted and arrogant. I'm all for being better to the earth, but to do it to the point where it hurts our way of life and hurst businesses and lives of people is wrong.

You just don't get it - if we continue to behave as we are, the damage to "our way of life and hurts businesses" will be catastrophic. Civilisation as we know it will come to an end.

Modern civilisation is balanced on a knife-edge, particularly when it comes to food and water resources. A shift in the climate on the scale and speed we are currently witnessing will change the areas in which we can grow food, and is already running down the planet's fresh-water supplies (due to both melting glaciers and lower rainfall in catchment areas - California is a great example, as is Eastern India/Bangladesh, as is much of South America on the Andean side). I could go on, but if you can't even grasp the fact that a rapidly changing climate (and yes, we caused it - we have fundamentally changed the composition of the atmosphere, a FACT beyond disputation) spells disaster for a finite planet overpopulated by 7 billion people, what is the point?

On a related point, the oil will be gone in 40 years, and how exactly is an economic system increasing dependent on the stuff going to survive that? Without oil you have no modern agricultural system (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides are all OIL-derived), no modern transport system, no plastic/paints/pharmaceuticals, etc.

We have to change the way we live if this civilisation wants to continue. The entire system by which we interact with the natural world has to change, or this civilisation will fall.

[travis2]

When ANY of you alarmist fuckwads actually shows me any credentials that prove to me you have the brains to read and understand what goes into climate research, I'll listen to you.

Until then, take your Stalinist dreams and shove them straight up your ass. None of you have shown me you have the slightest scientific or mathematical education to be able to sort truth from fiction concerning these reports.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Well, I am just finishing up my Masters in Human Ecology, and have an undergrad degree in ecology. I read the IPCC reports from last year, not to mention hundreds of individual papers and reports on all manner of global change issues (not just climate but resource consumption, waste, pollution, fisheries, etc) over the last decade. So stick that up your arse.

Stalinist claims? So someone who believes the scientists must be a Communist? Uh-hu. :rolleyes

Who asked you to listen to me? Listen to the SCIENTISTS. That was the point in my first post in this thread about accountants and mechanics... listen to the SCIENTISTS. They wrote the reports, they did the work. Don't listen to me, read the reports yourself. Talk to scientists at your local universities, or at government agencies. Read the debates between climatologists from all over the world and skeptics on realclimate.org And then tell me how the theory is flawed. Also explain to me how changes in local climates (affecting rainfall patterns, temperature regimes, etc.) observed across the globe are occurring 10-100x faster than at any time in the geological record, how that's all a big conspiracy. Please, let me know why the world's best scientists are wrong about climate change, how their observations are invalid.

Until you can do that, :flipoff

[travis2]

1. Explain the term "global average temperature" and its relevance to global climate.
2. Explain how climate modeling works. Include the models used, their mathematical basis, any assumptions/simplifications used.
3. Explain how temperature data is calibrated. Include how uncertainty bounds are expressed.
4. Explain how historical CO2 data shows causality between CO2 level and temperature.
5. Explain how the peer-review process works when dealing with "climate change" journal papers.
6. Explain why there is NO NET TEMPERATURE CHANGE over the last 10 years.

That should do for a start.

Citing the IPCC as your "authority" does nothing to increase your credibility in my eyes. In fact, it decreases it.

Oh, BTW...my MS is in Electrical Engineering, as is my PhD-in-progress (specifically in statistical signal processing). Further, I have spent the last 15 years of my professional career concentrating on measurement technology, measurement processes, and measurement uncertainty. Trust me...I can follow the math, and I can follow the physics. And what the IPCC is doing is criminal, the way they have perverted the scientific process for their own personal gain.

[Rocky]

Shaddup

[Nbadan]

:lol This is a guy who is convinced there is a supreme being who lives up in the clouds who gives a shit about his soul....

[travis2]

Non sequitur noted.

[tlongII]

You just don't get it - if we continue to behave as we are, the damage to "our way of life and hurts businesses" will be catastrophic. Civilisation as we know it will come to an end.

Modern civilisation is balanced on a knife-edge, particularly when it comes to food and water resources. A shift in the climate on the scale and speed we are currently witnessing will change the areas in which we can grow food, and is already running down the planet's fresh-water supplies (due to both melting glaciers and lower rainfall in catchment areas - California is a great example, as is Eastern India/Bangladesh, as is much of South America on the Andean side). I could go on, but if you can't even grasp the fact that a rapidly changing climate (and yes, we caused it - we have fundamentally changed the composition of the atmosphere, a FACT beyond disputation) spells disaster for a finite planet overpopulated by 7 billion people, what is the point?

On a related point, the oil will be gone in 40 years, and how exactly is an economic system increasing dependent on the stuff going to survive that? Without oil you have no modern agricultural system (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides are all OIL-derived), no modern transport system, no plastic/paints/pharmaceuticals, etc.

We have to change the way we live if this civilisation wants to continue. The entire system by which we interact with the natural world has to change, or this civilisation will fall.

I just had to pipe in on this oil point as it is complete bullshit. Do you realize that the USA has oil reserves that are nearly the equivalent of the middle east's? We just aren't drilling it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I just had to pipe in on this oil point as it is complete bullshit. Do you realize that the USA has oil reserves that are nearly the equivalent of the middle east's? We just aren't drilling it.

we can thank the enviromentals for this. along with all the Inconvenient Truth dvd owners, but someone is drilling.......................

---------------------------------------------------------------



Rep talks possible gas price solutions
By CHRISTINE RAPPLEYE ([email protected]), The Enterprise
05/30/2008

Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT



PORT ARTHUR - Pain and strain on the budget when paying for gas could eased if there weren't such tight regulations on permitting refineries and oil rigs, U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, told members of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce Thursday.

"The permitting process takes years," Poe said. "It needs to be cut down."

Once that's done, domestic refining capabilities can be increased.

"That's just part of the answer," he said, adding that there is oil in more places than where there is drilling. Drilling and exploration primarily is in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, and there is oil off the Alaskan coast.

Drilling can be done safely, as shown in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita when none of the hundreds of rigs in the Gulf leaked or had spills because of their safety equipment, he said.

And while Florida has resisted offshore wells, Cuba is delivering a Chinese-financed rig to a spot about 55 miles off the coast of Florida, he added.

Other alternative fuels, like ethanol, aren't the catch-all answer, either.

"It's not going to save us," he said, adding that he doesn't like using things people consume for fuel. Another drawback is the additional fertilizers used to increase corn production will only add to the runoff fueling the Gulf's dead zone.

"We ought to do other things," he said, noting that China is building several nuclear power plants, but that U.S. isn't moving forward at that rate because of regulations.

Poe also updated the group on his trip to Iraq during Easter, his concerns about border security and other issues.


Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19732215&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

We all need to do our part to control global warming and stop eating Mexican food.

Anyone who has knows that you contribute a lot of gas to the atmosphere the day after :spin

[Nbadan]

I just had to pipe in on this oil point as it is complete bullshit. Do you realize that the USA has oil reserves that are nearly the equivalent of the middle east's? We just aren't drilling it.

Put the pipe down....where exactly are all these untapped reserves?

[Nbadan]

That's just part of the answer," he said, adding that there is oil in more places than where there is drilling. Drilling and exploration primarily is in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, and there is oil off the Alaskan coast

The DOE estimates that if we drilled in ANWAR gas prices would decrease a total of $.01 by 2012....YipeEEEEEEEEE!

[PEP]

The DOE estimates that if we drilled in ANWAR gas prices would decrease a total of $.01 by 2012....YipeEEEEEEEEE!

Are you sure it was the DOE and not Chucky Schumer?

As the oil executives hearings on Capitol Hill received great media attention given soaring gasoline prices, supposedly impartial press members missed a classic gaffe by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as it pertains to the benefits of OPEC raising production quotas versus America drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On Wednesday, Schumer once again claimed "if [Saudi Arabia] did a million barrels of oil a day increase from today, it would go down about -- the translation to gasoline would be about $.50 a gallon, maybe $.62."

Yet, on May 7, Schumer felt a likely similar increase from drilling in ANWR would "reduce the price of oil by a penny."

As Marc Sheppard over at the American Thinker cleverly pointed out Thursday, in Schumer's odd calculus, only increases in foreign oil production will bring down the price.

[tlongII]

Put the pipe down....where exactly are all these untapped reserves?

Most of them are off-shore. Go ahead and Google it. Then you may wish to put your pipe down.

[Don Quixote]

We all need to do our part to control global warming and stop eating Mexican food.

Anyone who has knows that you contribute a lot of gas to the atmosphere the day after :spin

The U.N. wants us to start eating insects now, instead of cows and pigs. Full of protein, and it doesn't cause methane emissions like cow farts.

Hey ... if enviros want to eat bugs -- they can.

[T Park]

we can thank the enviromentals for this. along with all the Inconvenient Truth dvd owners, but someone is drilling.......................

---------------------------------------------------------------



Rep talks possible gas price solutions
By CHRISTINE RAPPLEYE ([email protected]), The Enterprise
05/30/2008

Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT



PORT ARTHUR - Pain and strain on the budget when paying for gas could eased if there weren't such tight regulations on permitting refineries and oil rigs, U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, told members of the Greater Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce Thursday.

"The permitting process takes years," Poe said. "It needs to be cut down."

Once that's done, domestic refining capabilities can be increased.

"That's just part of the answer," he said, adding that there is oil in more places than where there is drilling. Drilling and exploration primarily is in the Gulf of Mexico, he said, and there is oil off the Alaskan coast.

Drilling can be done safely, as shown in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita when none of the hundreds of rigs in the Gulf leaked or had spills because of their safety equipment, he said.

And while Florida has resisted offshore wells, Cuba is delivering a Chinese-financed rig to a spot about 55 miles off the coast of Florida, he added.

Other alternative fuels, like ethanol, aren't the catch-all answer, either.

"It's not going to save us," he said, adding that he doesn't like using things people consume for fuel. Another drawback is the additional fertilizers used to increase corn production will only add to the runoff fueling the Gulf's dead zone.

"We ought to do other things," he said, noting that China is building several nuclear power plants, but that U.S. isn't moving forward at that rate because of regulations.

Poe also updated the group on his trip to Iraq during Easter, his concerns about border security and other issues.


Updated 05/29/2008 11:52:58 PM CDT

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19732215&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6


Yup, got great reserves off of the coast of Florida, not allowed to drill for it.

But Mexico is selling all the areas of the gulf off to China. I believe Venezuela is building a bunch of drilling rigs about 100 or so miles off of Miami.

Hell they can have the oil, but we can't get it ourselves.

Genius moves guys :tu

[T Park]

You just don't get it - if we continue to behave as we are, the damage to "our way of life and hurts businesses" will be catastrophic. Civilisation as we know it will come to an end.

Modern civilisation is balanced on a knife-edge, particularly when it comes to food and water resources. A shift in the climate on the scale and speed we are currently witnessing will change the areas in which we can grow food, and is already running down the planet's fresh-water supplies (due to both melting glaciers and lower rainfall in catchment areas - California is a great example, as is Eastern India/Bangladesh, as is much of South America on the Andean side). I could go on, but if you can't even grasp the fact that a rapidly changing climate (and yes, we caused it - we have fundamentally changed the composition of the atmosphere, a FACT beyond disputation) spells disaster for a finite planet overpopulated by 7 billion people, what is the point?

On a related point, the oil will be gone in 40 years, and how exactly is an economic system increasing dependent on the stuff going to survive that? Without oil you have no modern agricultural system (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides are all OIL-derived), no modern transport system, no plastic/paints/pharmaceuticals, etc.

We have to change the way we live if this civilisation wants to continue. The entire system by which we interact with the natural world has to change, or this civilisation will fall.


:lol

Now its 40 years.

Before it was a hundred, then it was whatever.


The "facts" keep changing for the enviros :lol

[T Park]

1. Explain the term "global average temperature" and its relevance to global climate.
2. Explain how climate modeling works. Include the models used, their mathematical basis, any assumptions/simplifications used.
3. Explain how temperature data is calibrated. Include how uncertainty bounds are expressed.
4. Explain how historical CO2 data shows causality between CO2 level and temperature.
5. Explain how the peer-review process works when dealing with "climate change" journal papers.
6. Explain why there is NO NET TEMPERATURE CHANGE over the last 10 years.

That should do for a start.

Citing the IPCC as your "authority" does nothing to increase your credibility in my eyes. In fact, it decreases it.

Oh, BTW...my MS is in Electrical Engineering, as is my PhD-in-progress (specifically in statistical signal processing). Further, I have spent the last 15 years of my professional career concentrating on measurement technology, measurement processes, and measurement uncertainty. Trust me...I can follow the math, and I can follow the physics. And what the IPCC is doing is criminal, the way they have perverted the scientific process for their own personal gain.

I mentioned along those lines a while back that alot of the scientists in the corner of GW, were doing it just for the money grants and the bucks.

I was laughed at.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The DOE estimates that if we drilled in ANWAR gas prices would decrease a total of $.01 by 2012....YipeEEEEEEEEE!hmmmm
DOE
Department of Energy
government entity
nah....i really don't trust the government on that
sorry

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The U.N. wants us to start eating insects now, instead of cows and pigs. Full of protein, and it doesn't cause methane emissions like cow farts.

Hey ... if enviros want to eat bugs -- they can.

speaking of......
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/06/02/time-mag-eating-bugs-great-way-save-planet

[Nbadan]

The U.S. currently consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. About 70 percent of that consumption is used for transportation. We consume about 45 percent of the world’s production of gasoline. This is the demand side of the oil problem. Current U.S. crude oil production is 5.1 million barrels a day and declining. (U.S. production peaked in 1970 at 11.4 million barrels a day.) We import nearly 15 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products a day. This is the supply side of the oil problem.

Domestic oil exploration and development takes time. During this time currently producing fields, such as the Northern Slope, decline as new ones are brought on line. There is no credible scenario where domestic oil production from conventional sources will significantly affect our dependence on foreign crude oil and petroleum products. Conservation, technological changes and production of fuels from unconventional sources will all be part of the long run solution.

Cheap energy was a major factor in our country’s economic success. Our continued success will result from creative solutions to energy problems. After all, it was Saudi Oil Minister Zaki Yamani who observed that the Stone Age didn’t end because the world ran out of stones.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

.....and in 10 years china will consume what the whole world consumes today.

[Nbadan]

There is a common myth that the United States has become more dependent on foreign oil because it has failed to expand production domestically. The truth is that the United States is not an exceptionally oil-rich area, especially after decades of intensive extraction: proven reserves are only about 22 billion barrels. In contrast, the Middle East has 740 billion barrels in proven reserves. And we've already reached the apex for American oil extraction, as domestic oil production has declined by half since hitting its peak in 1970.

Proposals for expanding domestic oil production into fragile areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are dramatically shortsighted. While damaging a pristine and long-protected environmental area, the additional resources would be a drop in the bucket in reducing the amount of imported oil. Oil fields in the Arctic Refuge would likely produce less in total than what the United States now consumes in six months, and less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume over the 50 year production lifetime. Even at the point of its peak production rate in 2027, it would likely equal less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption for that year.

[tlongII]

There is a common myth that the United States has become more dependent on foreign oil because it has failed to expand production domestically. The truth is that the United States is not an exceptionally oil-rich area, especially after decades of intensive extraction: proven reserves are only about 22 billion barrels. In contrast, the Middle East has 740 billion barrels in proven reserves. And we've already reached the apex for American oil extraction, as domestic oil production has declined by half since hitting its peak in 1970.

Proposals for expanding domestic oil production into fragile areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are dramatically shortsighted. While damaging a pristine and long-protected environmental area, the additional resources would be a drop in the bucket in reducing the amount of imported oil. Oil fields in the Arctic Refuge would likely produce less in total than what the United States now consumes in six months, and less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume over the 50 year production lifetime. Even at the point of its peak production rate in 2027, it would likely equal less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption for that year.

Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Nbadan]

Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about.

Don't take my word for it go the Realclimate website (http://www.realclimate.org/) and read what real climate scientist have to say about global climate change...

[travis2]

Yes, let's see what real climate scientists have to say...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0

And I wouldn't take your word for whether or not the sky was blue.

[travis2]

Or maybe...http://www.climateaudit.org/

[remingtonbo2001]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise. :spin

[travis2]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise. :spin

Actually, I've never claimed a solid position. Only the anti-human bigots like some of the above claim that any disagreement with their position is support for the opposite.

[peewee's lovechild]

:lol

First off, 90% of the population doesn't drive diesel engines.


Moron, that was my point.

I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
I forgot we have to speak slooooooooooowly to you.



Second, once again, what part of, the EPA's gross restrictions on the engines is strapping businesses don't you understand?


So, you'll mortgage the future to save a couple of dollars today??

Honestly, you're willing to make your kids and grandkids suffer because you want to save a couple of dollars??

**EDIT**
No body in their right mind would fuck you, so it may be a moot point to answer the second question.

[peewee's lovechild]

When ANY of you alarmist fuckwads actually shows me any credentials that prove to me you have the brains to read and understand what goes into climate research, I'll listen to you.

Until then, take your Stalinist dreams and shove them straight up your ass. None of you have shown me you have the slightest scientific or mathematical education to be able to sort truth from fiction concerning these reports.


Stalin was a climatologist??

That's interesting.

[peewee's lovechild]

Oh, BTW...my MS is in Electrical Engineering, as is my PhD-in-progress (specifically in statistical signal processing). Further, I have spent the last 15 years of my professional career concentrating on measurement technology, measurement processes, and measurement uncertainty. Trust me...I can follow the math, and I can follow the physics. And what the IPCC is doing is criminal, the way they have perverted the scientific process for their own personal gain.


And yet you still used the term "Stalinist dreams" to describe global warming?

Hey, can you explain to me in terms of measurement, or perhaps in mathematical terms, what happens to all the carbon emitted from vehicles and coal plants and what not?

What does carbon do to our atmosphere?

What are the repurcussions of having too much carbon in the atmosphere?

Do you know what the ozone layer is?

What would cause the ozone layer to dissapate?

Since 1900, how much carbon has been emitted to the atmosphere and what has been the cause?

In what percentage has carbon emission gone up every decade since 1900?

[Don Quixote]

Why can't we just agree that no one is really sure?


You don't know, I don't know.

However, I'm taking bets. Just paypal the money to my account and we'll check back in 40 years. Promise. :spin

Yes, an agnostic on global warming. What a reasonable position. So reasonable that I happen to hold to it myself.

If we're going to do the serious damage to our economy, food supply, etc., that the enviros are surely wanting, we better be darn sure that this crisis is real, not imaginary.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't take my word for it go the Realclimate website (http://www.realclimate.org/) and read what real climate scientist have to say about global climate change...

Propaganda Dan, RealClimate is a site of propaganda!

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I gotta jump in here...



Hey, can you explain to me in terms of measurement, or perhaps in mathematical terms, what happens to all the carbon emitted from vehicles and coal plants and what not?

I can not, but the ocean's equilibrium is such that it sinks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In fact, the oceans contain 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere.



What does carbon do to our atmosphere?

Increase the growth of plants. CO2 levels already trap most of the IR that can be trapped. There is very little increase to temperature by increasing CO2. The IPCC and alarmists use the same old misunderstood sciences that indicates a 1.5 C to 4.5 C increase in temperature by doubling CO2. Doubling CO2 can not increase the temperature this much. Modern understanding of CO2 gas models make this assessment impossible. It is likely under 0.5 C for doubling CO2 levels.



What are the repercussions of having too much carbon in the atmosphere?

Be specific. We do have a carbon problem. It's called soot, or black carbon. Asia is causing this soot to fall over the arctic ice cap, increasing the melt rate substantially. CO2 is not a problem for man kind until at least the 3% point (30,000 ppm). It will likely cause problems for more sensitive life like birds before that, but we will never see such levels.



Do you know what the ozone layer is?

What would cause the ozone layer to dissapate?

Several things do that. Primarily, the 11 year solar cycle. The southern pole gets hit harder because of the polarity of the magnetism, and that the earth is closest to the sun in early January. Total irradiance from the sun is normally about 0.1% higher with high sunspot activity, but the cosmic radiation responsible for atmospheric changes increase even higher.



Since 1900, how much carbon has been emitted to the atmosphere and what has been the cause?

A great deal. Our atmosphere now contains about 40% more CO2 than it did a hundred years ago. The cause is debatable. The obvious answer is that we produce it from burning fuel and coal. Still, volcanic eruptions account for large volumes too. You see, there is another equilibrium of about 28 ppm for every 1 C of average ocean temperature change. It appears the oceans have warmed by 3 C since 1900. That would account for 84 ppm of the 387 ppm. In 1900, the level was about 280 ppm. The natural balance would change the 280 ppm to about 364 ppm. Well within error range considering we now measure atmospheric CO2 in warm places like Hawaii rather than the historical ice core records.



In what percentage has carbon emission gone up every decade since 1900?
Emission doesn't matter. What matters is can it be slinked fast enough.

Consider this:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASAGISSUSTRENDS.jpg (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA_Cherry_Picking_on_Trend_Analyses.pdf)

Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier. That 0.1% increase may seem insignificant, but considering how cold the earth would be with no solar radiation, it amounts to over 0.2 C just by the increase in solar irradiation. Matches up pretty good to the 0.18 C trend when all averages are taken into account.

FromNASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/):

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/SIchange.gif

[Nbadan]

Yes, let's see what real climate scientists have to say...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0

And I wouldn't take your word for whether or not the sky was blue.

Let's see...

Edward Wegman ...Dr. Wegman indicated that the report had only been peer-reviewed by those he selected

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman)

Nice...

[Nbadan]

Or maybe...http://www.climateaudit.org/

Steve McIntyre...


Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]



Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre)

A guy who has had or continues to have interest in mineral and oil and gas...no bias there!

:lol

[Nbadan]

anti-human bigots

That's about all you need to know about God-fearing Travis...

:lmao

[Nbadan]

If we're going to do the serious damage to our economy, food supply, etc., that the enviros are surely wanting, we better be darn sure that this crisis is real, not imaginary.

Yes, people who care about the environment we are leaving our children want us to starve.

:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Propaganda Dan, RealClimate is a site of propaganda!

Of course...that the standard answer to anything you don't believe in...

[Nbadan]

I can not, but the ocean's equilibrium is such that it sinks carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In fact, the oceans contain 50 times the CO2 as the atmosphere.

..and all that CO2 just magically disappears in the ocean, right?

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict


“It appears this acidification is now taking place over decades, rather than centuries as originally predicted. It is happening even faster in the cooler waters of the Southern Ocean than in the tropics. It is starting to look like a very serious issue.”

Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).

“Analysis of coral cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years,” says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS and the University of Queensland. “There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.

“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in 1960.)

Science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

Of course...that the standard answer to anything you don't believe in...

No, I call it like I see it. I have done exhaustive work on the subject and I understand the sciences behind global warming. I see it as nothing more than natural cycles, with no significant impact by us. The alarmists use lies, cherry picked data, and propaganda to try convince us man made warming is real.

I suspect this is a one-world-government ploy to knock the USA and other first world countries down. Look at the key players. All globalists!

[Wild Cobra]

..and all that CO2 just magically disappears in the ocean, right?

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict



Science daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm)

Another alarmist article.

About 1/3rd of a PH unit... Do you know what that means? Most people don't. A PH unit is a factor of ten. 0.301 PH change is a factor of two. How can our increased CO2 in the atmosphere possible chnage the ocean PH that much? Please show me the math. If you understood the carbon cycle, the amount of CO2 in the world, and how much we produced....

Keep it up Propaganda Dan... You really earned the name.

[Nbadan]

Yes, it's is about keeping America down :rolleyes

or....... we can't afford to be wrong about the socio-economic effects of global climate change...it we are wrong then we're out a few billion dollars, but if they're right, we're out our future and our children's future....

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, it's is about keeping America down :rolleyes

or....... we can't afford to be wrong about the socio-economic effects of global climate change...it we are wrong then we're out a few billion dollars, but if they're right, we're out our future and our children's future....

Those of us who understand the sciences and see the relevant data do not fear increased CO2. It is a financial or world domination driven agenda, or else the so called experts advocating it are really stupid. I refuse to sit by and let people like you who piss in their pants over the fear lead us to economic ruin.

In fact, to get the results of ocean acification you pet article said, we would have had to expel modern day CO2 levels for 185 years, and have no deep ocean mixing or farther chemical changes from the carbonic acid. The article claims it was over 50 years... No degradation of the carbonic acid and having deep ocean mixing would require over 7,000 years of our current CO2 emissions to change the ocean PH that much.

Nature alone makes changes that dwarf what mankind can do.

Do you have a clue as to how massive the oceans are compared to the atmosphere?

[travis2]

Don't confuse our local communist with facts. He barely has enough time to post while he's sucking off the corpse of his hero, Joe Stalin.

And I don't know if his accusing others of bias is hysterical or just plain sad.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't confuse our local communist with facts. He barely has enough time to post while he's sucking off the corpse of his hero, Joe Stalin.

And I don't know if his accusing others of bias is hysterical or just plain sad.
But it's fun to point out when he inserts his foot into his mouth up to his ass.

[peewee's lovechild]

http://www.wunderground.com/US/DC/001.html#HEA

[peewee's lovechild]

http://wcbstv.com/local/Heat.Wave.Approaches.2.741919.html

[peewee's lovechild]

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/usheat.gif

[RandomGuy]

..and all that CO2 just magically disappears in the ocean, right?

Acid Oceans From Carbon Dioxide Will Endanger One Third Of Marine Life, Scientists Predict



Science daily


Another alarmist article.

About 1/3rd of a PH unit... Do you know what that means? Most people don't. A PH unit is a factor of ten. 0.301 PH change is a factor of two. How can our increased CO2 in the atmosphere possible chnage the ocean PH that much? Please show me the math. If you understood the carbon cycle, the amount of CO2 in the world, and how much we produced....

Keep it up Propaganda Dan... You really earned the name.

Ok then, dogma boy, how will such a change in ph affect microscopic marine life.

Explain it so all of us mere mortals can understand.

[RandomGuy]

Aw fuck it. WC isn't honest enough to answer a straight question, I will answer it for him.


Corals and plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web. They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify).


“There’s not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans.

[RandomGuy]

Those of us who understand the sciences and see the relevant data do not fear increased CO2. It is a financial or world domination driven agenda, or else the so called experts advocating it are really stupid. I refuse to sit by and let people like you who piss in their pants over the fear lead us to economic ruin.

In fact, to get the results of ocean acification you pet article said, we would have had to expel modern day CO2 levels for 185 years, and have no deep ocean mixing or farther chemical changes from the carbonic acid. The article claims it was over 50 years... No degradation of the carbonic acid and having deep ocean mixing would require over 7,000 years of our current CO2 emissions to change the ocean PH that much.

Nature alone makes changes that dwarf what mankind can do.

Do you have a clue as to how massive the oceans are compared to the atmosphere?


Here is where the spin and lies start coming.

Let's start here:


we would have had to expel modern day CO2 levels for 185 years, and have no deep ocean mixing or farther chemical changes from the carbonic acid.

It certainly sounds nice and science-y, right?

"no deep ocean mixing"...

Plankton and coral don't live in the deep ocean. They live in the upper strata that is still hit with enough sunlight to photosynthesize and filter nutrients.

The article was talking about increased acid in that upper layer, the damage doesn't have to come from "deep ocean mixing".

Ooops.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I just thought I'd give this thread a few days to percolate, and the results were predictable.

Tlong, if the US has these oil reserves you speak of, and the US government has, for a decade, continually talked about weaning the country off Middle Eastern oil, please explain to me exactly why those reserves are not being tapped. Is it because of the economic cost? The price of oil has doubled in 18 months and continues to rise (peakoil, anyone?), so surely that could not be the case. Or is it because THEY DON'T EXIST? of course it is. There is the oil shale in Nevada, and the small deposits in ANWAR, and that's it. Wake the fuck up, seriously.

T Park, who said the world had 100 years of oil supply left? I never did. The intersection of proven reserves and demand curves for oil have pointed to the stuff running out some time between 2040 and 2060 for a decade now. In fact, American petro-geologist M King Hubbert was talking about peak oil for the US back in 1956, and correctly predicted the peak in US oil production.

Travis, as I said, I have been reading articles about global change for a decade now, I do not rely on the IPCC. And to some extent I agree that the IPCC is not a wonderful source because it is politically co-opted. However, the most damning evidence for climate change that I have read comes from observations of the natural world - the impact of warming on glaciers, on ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica, flowering and migration patterns, localised climatic shifts being experienced all over the world, the pause in the Great Conveyor Belt in 2004, etc. Global mean temperature is used extensively in the media because it is easy for people to understand, however it gives the wrong impression of the profound changes happening on more localised scales all across the planet, which are being reported by peer reviewed science. I place far more weight on these reports than on modelling.

But let's go right back to the start - you're a physicist, which means you understand some chemistry, namely equilibrium states. Explain to me how you can significantly change the concentration of gases in a closed system and not alter the equilibrium of the system? It is undisputed that the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere has changed markedly, particularly gases that trap heat, so where is that heat magically disappearing to? If it's not disappearing, how then is that heat not going to change the equilibrium state of the atmosphere? Sure, oceans, which are responsible for 75% of planetary photosynthesis, are a buffer, but every buffer has its resilience threshold. What will happen when the oceanary buffer is overwhelmed?

As for ocean acidification, how is an increase in the CO2 absorbed by the oceans not going to result in greater ocean acidification? It must, according to our understanding of chemistry. There has already been work in the Southern Ocean on shell-forming marine plants and animals that shows that they have thinner shells as a result of the pH change.

You're obviously a bright guy, and putting the IPCC aside for a moment, it really surprises me that someone like you can't see that the massive volume of man's impact on the planet (pollution of the air, earth and water, changes in land use, overharvesting of natural ecosystems, etc) is fundamentally affecting its systems on a local and global scale. It's fucking obvious to anyone with a brain, which you obviously have.

[tlongII]

I just thought I'd give this thread a few days to percolate, and the results were predictable.

Tlong, if the US has these oil reserves you speak of, and the US government has, for a decade, continually talked about weaning the country off Middle Eastern oil, please explain to me exactly why those reserves are not being tapped. Is it because of the economic cost? The price of oil has doubled in 18 months and continues to rise (peakoil, anyone?), so surely that could not be the case. Or is it because THEY DON'T EXIST? of course it is. There is the oil shale in Nevada, and the small deposits in ANWAR, and that's it. Wake the fuck up, seriously.

T Park, who said the world had 100 years of oil supply left? I never did. The intersection of proven reserves and demand curves for oil have pointed to the stuff running out some time between 2040 and 2060 for a decade now. In fact, American petro-geologist M King Hubbert was talking about peak oil for the US back in 1956, and correctly predicted the peak in US oil production.

Travis, as I said, I have been reading articles about global change for a decade now, I do not rely on the IPCC. And to some extent I agree that the IPCC is not a wonderful source because it is politically co-opted. However, the most damning evidence for climate change that I have read comes from observations of the natural world - the impact of warming on glaciers, on ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica, flowering and migration patterns, localised climatic shifts being experienced all over the world, the pause in the Great Conveyor Belt in 2004, etc. Global mean temperature is used extensively in the media because it is easy for people to understand, however it gives the wrong impression of the profound changes happening on more localised scales all across the planet, which are being reported by peer reviewed science. I place far more weight on these reports than on modelling.

But let's go right back to the start - you're a physicist, which means you understand some chemistry, namely equilibrium states. Explain to me how you can significantly change the concentration of gases in a closed system and not alter the equilibrium of the system? It is undisputed that the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere has changed markedly, particularly gases that trap heat, so where is that heat magically disappearing to? If it's not disappearing, how then is that heat not going to change the equilibrium state of the atmosphere? Sure, oceans, which are responsible for 75% of planetary photosynthesis, are a buffer, but every buffer has its resilience threshold. What will happen when the oceanary buffer is overwhelmed?

As for ocean acidification, how is an increase in the CO2 absorbed by the oceans not going to result in greater ocean acidification? It must, according to our understanding of chemistry. There has already been work in the Southern Ocean on shell-forming marine plants and animals that shows that they have thinner shells as a result of the pH change.

You're obviously a bright guy, and putting the IPCC aside for a moment, it really surprises me that someone like you can't see that the massive volume of man's impact on the planet (pollution of the air, earth and water, changes in land use, overharvesting of natural ecosystems, etc) is fundamentally affecting its systems on a local and global scale. It's fucking obvious to anyone with a brain, which you obviously have.


It's a strategy Ruff that I don't necessarily agree with. Basically it's "why deplete your own oil reserves when you can you use someone else's?".

[T Park]

long, if the US has these oil reserves you speak of, and the US government has, for a decade, continually talked about weaning the country off Middle Eastern oil, please explain to me exactly why those reserves are not being tapped. Is it because of the economic cost? The price of oil has doubled in 18 months and continues to rise (peakoil, anyone?), so surely that could not be the case. Or is it because THEY DON'T EXIST? of course it is. There is the oil shale in Nevada, and the small deposits in ANWAR, and that's it. Wake the fuck up, seriously.

wrong "small" deposits? Please.

Theres loads and LOADS of oil out in the gulf and off the coast of Florida, but thanks to enviromentalist wackos, no ones allowed to drill out there.

But hell, Cuba and China are out there drilling.

So lets see, who would drill more enviromentally friendly, Cuba and China, or USA.

Great move Eviros!! THANK YOU!!!


The enviros won't be happy, until were all riding bikes, and living back in the stone age.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

These changes you are seeing right now, like the price of oil and food skyrocketing, are only the vanguard of a wave of economic, political, social and environmental change which is about to sweep the planet this century.

With 7bil humans on the planet, and another 3 billion set to arrive in the next 40 years, the carrying capacity of the planet has already been greatly exceeded, and the crash in human population is pretty much inevitable. There is no more arable land to exploit, and the great advances in yield seen during the green revolution are a thing of the past - in fact, productivity in many agricultural regions across the planet is on the decline. You can only extract so much from a fixed pool of resources, you can't get blood from a stone. What's more, the green revolution was largely BUILT ON OIL (fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are OIL-DERIVED), and proven reserves indicate that there's only about 40 years of the stuff left at current rates of consumption. So, essentially, take away the oil and modern the agricultural system doesn't work. What happens then? People will starve. Don't worry though, it will be people in poor coutries who bear the brunt to start with, as has always been the way, and always shall be.

Economically, most of the Western world has been living beyond its mean for 20 years now. The deregulation of banking which led to the explosion of credit, combined with a "me! me! me!"/"gotta have it now!" culture reinforced by media, has resulted in a generation that owes more than its ability to repay. That will continue to worsen as prices and interest rates rise.

Politically, the world will become increasingly unstable due to shortages of basic resources, namely food, water and oil. The world is already beyond it's sustainable threshold for fresh water and food supply, and that is going to lead to famine, war and disease.

Socially, it's pretty predictable what flows out of the challenges outlined above - the rich will be okay, the poor will be left to fend for themselves. Such is life.

Environmentally, the climate will change, extreme weather events will become more frequent, sea levels will eventually rise. Soils will become less productive as soil degredation and desertification continue, and thus agricultural production will decline, and meat will once again become a true luxury as grain prices skyrocket (8kg grain goes into 1kg beef, for eg). Fresh water will become scarcer. The only fish you eat will be farmed (75% of the world's fisheries are either already gone or will disappear in the next 50 years). Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the world's species will disappear as their habitats disappear and human pressures overwhelm them.

The 21st century will be a time of ugly global change, caused by overpopulation and greed. We'll revisit this post in 2025 and see how things have gone. Lord, how I hope I'm wrong, but the simple physical limits of the planet as an ecosystem have been passed, and when you do that a crash is inevitable... may it be a transition, and not a sudden plunge into the depths.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

wrong "small" deposits? Please.

Theres loads and LOADS of oil out in the gulf and off the coast of Florida, but thanks to enviromentalist wackos, no ones allowed to drill out there.

But hell, Cuba and China are out there drilling.

So lets see, who would drill more enviromentally friendly, Cuba and China, or USA.

Great move Eviros!! THANK YOU!!!


The enviros won't be happy, until were all riding bikes, and living back in the stone age.

Just like the "enviros" stopped drilling in ANWAR!? Pulease, pull your head out of your arse. Point me to documented evidence of these massive reserves, I can't find any.

Oh, and just to point out, a massive find in terms of oil is 200+ billion barrels. I say this because the "massive find" off Brazil a few months ago was 14 billion barrels, enough to supply the world for 165 days at current rates of consumption.

There have been no significant oil finds in the world since the 1970s.

In other words, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR ARSE AGAIN.

If this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14678206/

is what you are talking about, it's only (a maximum of) 15bil barrels, about 2 years of current US oil supply. A drop in the ocean.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Just like the "enviros" stopped drilling in ANWAR!? Pulease, pull your head out of your arse. Point me to documented evidence of these massive reserves, I can't find any.well first of all i think oil is not a renewable resource, so some help will do. i'd rather keep money "in the family" instead of paying terrorists. what do you think, scholar?! i could care less about polar bears and that's why alaska is off limits for now. the polar bear population has grown 5 fold over 20 years. i don't see any endangerment going on there.

Oh, and just to point out, a massive find in terms of oil is 200+ billion barrels. I say this because the "massive find" off Brazil a few months ago was 14 billion barrels, enough to supply the world for 165 days at current rates of consumption. i don't think brasil is selling their reserves to anyone. kinda like what would happen if we drilled in alaska. they're pretty much energy independent from the world. i hope that isn't a shock to you.

There have been no significant oil finds in the world since the 1970s. thanks to enviros.

In other words, YOU ARE TALKING OUT YOUR ARSE AGAIN.ooooooooo. the caps rule all.

[T Park]

Just like the "enviros" stopped drilling in ANWAR!? Pulease, pull your head out of your arse. Point me to documented evidence of these massive reserves, I can't find any.


Yes, Enviros have kept there being any drilling in anwar.

There has been many documentated cases for the pros of drilling in anwar.

Hell the people of Alask are practically BEGGING for them to come drill.

Its a friggen barren sheet of ice out there.


But yes, lets let it go to rot, have 6 dollar gas, and continue to blame the president.

[T Park]

Oh, and just to point out, a massive find in terms of oil is 200+ billion barrels. I say this because the "massive find" off Brazil a few months ago was 14 billion barrels, enough to supply the world for 165 days at current rates of consumption.



Brazil doesn't even need it due to running off of the sugar beets or whatever.

Thats great and all, bring on switchgrass too.

Truth is, I'm sick of paying big money for fuel, and I'm sick of enviro whackos blocking the drilling for new oil, the development of the shale for oil, and the blocking of the natural gas reserves in I think COlorado or Utah.

[1Parker1]

:pctoss All of a sudden after beautiful weather two weeks ago, Philly is going to be seeing record breaking heat this week with temps in the upper 90's (98 degrees today) for the next 5 days :wow I can't remember the last time it was this hot so early in June around here :pctoss

I HATE summer.

[PEP]

What's going to happen if Obama is elected and the price of gasoline keeps going up? Who will they blame it on? I know they'll blame Bush as long as they can but they cant do it forever. Oh hell, yes they can.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok then, dogma boy, how will such a change in ph affect microscopic marine life.

Explain it so all of us mere mortals can understand.

Your really are an idiot, aren't you. I was not trying to explain what a PH change would do. I was saying we could not possible change it that much. There can be a miniscule change in ocean PH from our added CO2. I was saying we cold not possible change it by 1/3rd of a PH unit.

First of all, with temperature and pressure equal, an equilibrium is established between the atmosphere and the ocean. CO2 levels in the ocean increase with atmospheric increases. The is also an equilibrium between CO2 and H2CO3. This makes for a factor of 10 change in atmospheric CO2 making a 0.5 PH change

If we consider that full equilibrium too effect between the atmosphere and ocean, then the 280 ppm changing to 380 ppm in the atmosphere can make a 0.066 PH change. One fifteenth of a PH unit. Not one third. I wouldn't call that outside of any natural deviations, but I also will not say it doesn't cause marine life damage. I don't know how sensitive the different life types are. Keep in mind, to have the 1/3 PH unit change the article speaks of, the preindustrial CO2 in the atmosphere would have to change from 280 ppm to 1300 ppm.

Do the math. Prove me wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is where the spin and lies start coming.

Let's start here:



It certainly sounds nice and science-y, right?

"no deep ocean mixing"...

Plankton and coral don't live in the deep ocean. They live in the upper strata that is still hit with enough sunlight to photosynthesize and filter nutrients.

The article was talking about increased acid in that upper layer, the damage doesn't have to come from "deep ocean mixing".

Ooops.
Again, you haven't a clue of what I am speaking of. I mentioned there would have to be no mixing to keep the saturation to such levels. Mixing with the lower layers dilute the CO2 and H2CO3 levels. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. I am pointing out that with mixing, it takes far more CO2 to maintain a high enough equilibrium to make any measurable change. If the ocean is completely stagnate, with no mixing, then it still takes a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 to make a PH change that matters. What was the number in my last post? over 1000 ppm, right?

[Trainwreck2100]

It's a strategy Ruff that I don't necessarily agree with. Basically it's "why deplete your own oil reserves when you can you use someone else's?".

I'm for that strategy, i might not be around for the cumination, but it will be nice to fuck over the Arabs when they are out of oil, like the are fucking us over now

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

:lmao

You actually believe that the US government has massive hidden reserves of oil that they are somehow hiding from the world... c'mon now, next you'll be saying you believe in aliens! How come you know about this when the world's best petrogeologists and intelligence agencies don't? C'mon now.


Yes, Enviros have kept there being any drilling in anwar.

There has been many documentated cases for the pros of drilling in anwar.

Hell the people of Alask are practically BEGGING for them to come drill.

Its a friggen barren sheet of ice out there.


But yes, lets let it go to rot, have 6 dollar gas, and continue to blame the president.

Once again, you ignore the evidence. ANWAR is projected to have 10.4bil barrels of oil, which is about 1 year, 3 months worth of oil for the US. It is NOT a lot of oil when you use 23,000,000 barrels a day as the US does. The problem is overconsumption of a finite non-renewable resource.

As for the "pros" of drilling, that's all fine for you living in Texas. It's not so fine for the people who live in Alaska, and certainly not the indigenous people. They don't benefit from the oil money, they just get their land raped and their ecosystem ruined while shareholders benefit.

This story from the Anchorage Times covers both sides of the debate:

http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/390865.html

You seem incapable of understanding the issue though - oil is a FINITE RESOURCE. There have been no big oil discoveries in over 35 years. As I have pointed out continually for about 5 years now, when the world is using 31,000,000,000 - that's 31 BILLION - barrels of oil a year, as it has been this century, a discovery of 5-15bil barrels is a drop in the bucket, merely 6 months of world supply. There are no supergiant fields left to be found or petrogeologists would have found them.

Oil is running out, and after peak oil each barrel becomes more expensive to extract. The time of cheap oil has come to a close, and the world economy is now experiencing the first shocks related to this fact. Get used to it. We will all have to adjust our behaviour, because the oil price will continue to rise over the long-term from here on in.

[T Park]

It's not so fine for the people who live in Alaska, and certainly not the indigenous people. They don't benefit from the oil money, they just get their land raped and their ecosystem ruined while shareholders benefit.


Anwar is a barren sheet of ice out in the middle of nowhere.

What do YOU not understand about that?



You actually believe that the US government has massive hidden reserves of oil that they are somehow hiding from the world.

The government is not hiding anything from anyone.

The oil in the gulf and anward and the coal is there to freakin get, but the far left and freakin enviros keep blocking it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It's not so fine for the people who live in Alaska,
you stupid, stupid, man.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/you-go-girl-alaska-gop-gov-will-sue-bush-administration-over-polar-bear-listing/


do you know why alaska was admitted into the Union, scholar? eat your vegemite and shut the hell up with your tree-hugging B.S. they were added to the union to use their resources. guess why they haven't been tapped. look in the frickin mirror.

[T Park]

Seward was a genius damnt.

It was all goin good if it wasn't for those damn kids...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Show me scientific proof that it is a bunch of crap. Or should I just take your word for it?

hmmmm. choke on this
http://icecap.us/index.php

[PEP]

Those of you that are in the "I believe" camp about Global Warming; how many of you are living your lives in an "earth friendly" way?

Maybe bought a nice hybrid or are using the bus to get to work, bought those new light bulbs, watching your CO2 emissions, bought one of those nice green bags to put your groceries in, stopped using your AC in the house and have opened up the windows?

Personally, I believe that people like to say they're for "saving" the planet but when it actually comes down to putting it to the test theyre just full of crap and dont change a thing in their daily lives.

[Don Quixote]

It's possible that there haven't been any major oil discoveries the past 40-50 years ... but the oilcos, whose business it is to assess the value of oil deposits, don't seem to think so. From what I understand, the oilcos think that there is enough oil in Alaska, North Dakota, and offshore to justify the expense of drilling.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It's possible that there haven't been any major oil discoveries the past 40-50 years ... but the oilcos, whose business it is to assess the value of oil deposits, don't seem to think so. From what I understand, the oilcos think that there is enough oil in Alaska, North Dakota, and offshore to justify the expense of drilling....but what about the speckled-pecker bull mouse!? you republican!!!! :lmao

[Don Quixote]

I like mice just fine! I like all animals -- and if there's a REAL danger to this species or that one, then we ought to take reasonable measures to protect them. I'm totally fine with energy conservation and protecting habitats and species, clean air & water, etc. Those are REAL environmental issues, and I have no problem addressing them.

However, global warming is, at best, an unknown. We don't know if the world is warming. We don't know if it's being caused by man. We don't even know that global warming, if real, will cause real damage to civilization. And we sure as *ell don't know if we have the ability to fix it. But we do know this -- that restricting our access to oil and gas has caused real, tangible damage to the world economy (except the Saudis, they're fine), it's caused food prices to soar, caused stocks to be unstable at best, and switching to ethanol hasn't helped environmentally anyway! So before we apply cockamamie schemes to address big problems, we better be darn sure the problem is real.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yet another article on the effect of more acidic oceans, this time in situ above a CO2 vent:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn14085-acidic-champagne-sea-nothing-to-celebrate-for-corals-.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Viva - I don't give a fuck why "they were added to the union". So, Alaska is just a resource to you? I'm sure the people that live there are glad to know that. :rolleyes

T Park - you still ignore the fact that the ANWAR/Gulf oil are negligible deposits totalling about 25bil barrels, which won't affect world prices one bit, nor delay the world running out of oil by more than a year. But keep ignoring the facts, please.

Don, look at the figures. Sure, there's enough oil there to justify drilling, but the point is that 15bil barrels is not a "HUGE" oil find when you use 31bil barrels a year as the world currently does. The US goes through about 7 bil barrels a year, so even if ANWAR and the Gulf have 15bil barrels each, which is more than the oilcos predict, that's only 4 years of oil for the US at current consumption rates. Why is this so difficult to understand? Oh, and as for "not knowing" about Global Warming, it's you who doesn't know - science knows, and there are tens of thousands of articles to prove it. We DO know that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere, we do know that the climate is changing 10-100x faster than the naturally observed rate, and we do know that these things are affecting rainfall, temperature regimes and extreme weather events. We know that animals are migrating earlier, that plants are flowering earlier, that ice sheets and glaciers are melting faster... how many indicators do you need? We also know that these changes will affect civilisation, how can they not? The world's food and fresh water supplies are currently balanced on a knife edge (just ask Californian farmers about water, for an example in your own country), and shifts in the climate will endanger both.

PEP - FYI, I have completely changed the way I live since learning about my impact on the planet. In the last 3 years I have reduced my environmental footprint by over 60%, electricity consumption by 65%, petrol consumption by 75%, and I just bought a car on LPG which produces about 25% less GHGs, so reduce that again. I did this by changing my behaviour - riding a bike, turning everything off at the switch when not in use, not using a heater very often, taking shorter showers, etc, etc. Most of the food I buy is locally produced, I consume very little but when I do buy something I buy second hand so that the product does have to be made again because I took it off a shelf. I walk the walk.

However, I agree with you that most people who say they are "green" don't really do much about it. Believe me, I hate that as much as you do because i have actually done a lot and made a big difference to my impact on the planet.

Y'all can bury your heads in the sand, but I've been studying this stuff for years and it's not horseshit, and not believing it does not mean it will go away.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Anyway, once again I'm wasting my time debating people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Enjoy your ignorance. They say that it's bliss... and I often wish I didn't know what I know.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, you ignore the evidence. ANWAR is projected to have 10.4bil barrels of oil, which is about 1 year, 3 months worth of oil for the US. It is NOT a lot of oil when you use 23,000,000 barrels a day as the US does. The problem is overconsumption of a finite non-renewable resource.

Consider this. If we ignore such finds claiming they are too small, how many of them before it totals up to 20 years or more? Besides, the number is the known reserve of the area. Most areas keep pumping long after the estimated amount has been pumped out.

It is harmless to let the oil companies tap oil when found. We have modem technologies and safety methods that really limit the accident rates. I really wish people would be less fearful of progress.



Yet another article on the effect of more acidic oceans, this time in situ above a CO2 vent:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ine-news_rss20

Thank-you for the article. I wasn't going to take my time looking for such an explanation. I did say earlier, that:

Nature alone makes changes that dwarf what mankind can do.

I was specifically thinking of undersea vents, but RandomPropagandaGuy would then demand I prove it. They are simply the best example of high CO2 sources I know of. I have no proof, and I'm not even willing to say that's the cause of the declining ocean PH. It a very complicated subject, and I only know atmospheric CO2 is too insignificant to be the cause.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Viva - I don't give a fuck why "they were added to the union". So, Alaska is just a resource to you? I'm sure the people that live there are glad to know that. :rolleyes

again. you stupid, stupid man.

tKwZNwdowa4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4

choke on this for awhile. and please post any news articles about the people of alaska revolting over this very eye opening interview. please release the tree you're hugging while you watch this, professor.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cobra - nature dwarfing man was true when there were less than 1 billion people, and before massive industrialisation. With 7 billion people and a high level of industrialisation, that's not true any more. Man has transformed the planet, and if you can't see that you are blind. A 35% increase in the atmospheric concentration of atmospheric CO2 certainly WILL result in a change in the absorption of CO2 into the oceans, and the consequential pH change.

As for the smaller oil finds, you miss the point. The point is that continuing to increase consumption of oil, as the world is doing, is a dead-end strategy that will lead to economic collapse. Transition to a less-oil dependent economic system has to start now and happen quickly or that collapse will occur some time in the next two decades. The current skyrocketing in oil prices is the first sign that the financial system has twigged to peakoil as a reality.

As for the size of finds, petrogeologists put confidence intervals on their results. For eg., they predict roughly 5-15bil barrels in ANWAR, and it's only a 5% chance that the real find will be beyond those limits. However you look at it, it will not be another supergiant field.

Viva - you call that journalism? :lmao A rabid neo-con interviews the Republican governor of Alaska, what do you expect? Oil = tax revenue to the Alaskan government, so what do you expect them to say? And what do all the people who didn't vote for her have to say?

Either way, you ignore the fact that ANWAR is not going to save America from its dependence on foreign oil, nor change the world oil price. You fail to look outside your frame and see that the entire economic system needs to be modified because oil is a finite resource that is running out quickly. The incredible growth experienced in the 20th/21st centuries has been funded on a piggy bank of FINITE, NON-RENEWABLE resources, and that growth cannot continue once those resources run out. The fact that I have to explain that to you demonstrates that you are a stupid, stupid man. OPEN YOUR EYES.

I'll also point out that, just like Scott warned us all about the coming credit crunch 4 years ago (3 years before it happened), people like me have been talking about peakoil for a decade, and those really in the know have been talking about it for 25 years, same with climate change - they were both big issues in 1990-02 before the lobbyists buried them. If the world had started to act on these problems 25 years ago we could probably have avoided the looming crises, but the problem is that no-one was listening then, and no-one is really listening now. The ignorance and self-interest of the masses combines with spineless political leadership to maintain the status quo, and so shall it seemingly always be...

Oh, and don't accuse me of being a Communist because I'm not. Markets are fine. It's the idiocy of rampant overconsumption that needs to change. In beautiful poetic symmetry, rising prices and the contraction of credit should do exactly that - reduce overconsumption. However, I fear the contraction will be too little too late for many of the natural systems we ALL rely on. We shall see.

[travis2]

Travis, as I said, I have been reading articles about global change for a decade now, I do not rely on the IPCC. And to some extent I agree that the IPCC is not a wonderful source because it is politically co-opted. However, the most damning evidence for climate change that I have read comes from observations of the natural world - the impact of warming on glaciers, on ice sheets in Greenland and Antartica, flowering and migration patterns, localised climatic shifts being experienced all over the world, the pause in the Great Conveyor Belt in 2004, etc. Global mean temperature is used extensively in the media because it is easy for people to understand, however it gives the wrong impression of the profound changes happening on more localised scales all across the planet, which are being reported by peer reviewed science. I place far more weight on these reports than on modelling.

But let's go right back to the start - you're a physicist, which means you understand some chemistry, namely equilibrium states. Explain to me how you can significantly change the concentration of gases in a closed system and not alter the equilibrium of the system? It is undisputed that the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere has changed markedly, particularly gases that trap heat, so where is that heat magically disappearing to? If it's not disappearing, how then is that heat not going to change the equilibrium state of the atmosphere? Sure, oceans, which are responsible for 75% of planetary photosynthesis, are a buffer, but every buffer has its resilience threshold. What will happen when the oceanary buffer is overwhelmed?

As for ocean acidification, how is an increase in the CO2 absorbed by the oceans not going to result in greater ocean acidification? It must, according to our understanding of chemistry. There has already been work in the Southern Ocean on shell-forming marine plants and animals that shows that they have thinner shells as a result of the pH change.

You're obviously a bright guy, and putting the IPCC aside for a moment, it really surprises me that someone like you can't see that the massive volume of man's impact on the planet (pollution of the air, earth and water, changes in land use, overharvesting of natural ecosystems, etc) is fundamentally affecting its systems on a local and global scale. It's fucking obvious to anyone with a brain, which you obviously have.

You've also missed my point about the politicization of the entire peer-review process in this field...not just the IPCC. Where is the open sharing of data? What about the algorithms used to draw their conclusions? Even scientists who are still "true believers" have backed away from the Kool-Aid pitcher because of the tactics being used by the "custodians" of said data and algorithms.

And why would this happen, you might ask? What would scientists have to gain by gaming the system...even as badly and as heavy-handedly as they have? Please don't tell me you would actually ask those questions...I am only speculating you might. If you are half the scientist you tell me you are, you should already know the answer.

Secondly, when large temperature rise PRECEDES large CO2 increase, but theories REQUIRE THE OPPOSITE, it is clear to me that not all climate mechanisms are even CLOSE to being understood...or at least, are not being taken into account. Cloud cover being one of them. When estimates/models can change wildly due to (relatively) small changes in modeled cloud cover, I can say with some certainty that people involved either don't fully understand what they are doing or they flat don't care because it goes against their own paradigms.

Thirdly, "global average temperature" is not merely misleading...it is USELESS. And as such, presented as it is as some sort of talisman, it is a lie. You speak of the Earth being a system in equilibrium. True statement. However, the science (and scientists) treat it most often as a system in STATIC equilibrium. Never has been, never will be. And a system in DYNAMIC equilibrium behaves differently. It's harder to model. It requires lots of data and lots of computing power...in both cases, much more than there is available.

Did you even attempt to read ANY of the links I posted.

I have NEVER stated any strong view on "global climate change". Officially, I am an agnostic on the subject, for many reasons. However, because of what I see in what I am reading on the subject, I find that I can trust pretty much nothing coming from the so-called "mainstream". Too much sloppy work, too much data "massaging", too much flat-out ignoring ALL the data and only keeping the stuff they can make fit into their own theories. They've poisoned the well for me.

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra - nature dwarfing man was true when there were less than 1 billion people, and before massive industrialisation. With 7 billion people and a high level of industrialisation, that's not true any more. Man has transformed the planet, and if you can't see that you are blind. A 35% increase in the atmospheric concentration of atmospheric CO2 certainly WILL result in a change in the absorption of CO2 into the oceans, and the consequential pH change.

We do have an effect, but it is very, very small compared to what nature herself changes.

Do you know chemistry and mathmatics? An increase of 35% is just over a third increase in level, but the PH scale is a log10 scale. The article I debunked appears to have assumed a 1/3rd chnge in PH for a 1/3rd change in CO2. It doesn't happen that way. When you apply the varies known formulas and tested theories, the equilibrium is a factor of 100 rather than ten in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to make a 1 PH change in the ocean. It would take approximately a 20 fold increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to change the ocean PH by a third of a PH unit.

Keep in mind the scale of things. With the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it takes all our CO2 outputs well over 100 years at current levels to double the levels with the asumption that there is no sinking of the added CO2. With the natural sinking of CO2 by the oceans and biomass, it is well into several thousands of years.



As for the smaller oil finds, you miss the point. The point is that continuing to increase consumption of oil, as the world is doing, is a dead-end strategy that will lead to economic collapse. Transition to a less-oil dependent economic system has to start now and happen quickly or that collapse will occur some time in the next two decades. The current skyrocketing in oil prices is the first sign that the financial system has twigged to peakoil as a reality.

So forget about opening up more oil for the needs we have and go without?

The way I see it, we go ahead and tap as much as we can, and hope we find alternatives in the mean time. Otherwaise, our economy will callapse any way.



As for the size of finds, petrogeologists put confidence intervals on their results. For eg., they predict roughly 5-15bil barrels in ANWAR, and it's only a 5% chance that the real find will be beyond those limits. However you look at it, it will not be another supergiant field.

The range of confidence I've see is from 1.9 to 16 billion. Close enough. Still, hat's just that very tiny patch in ANWR. Looking at the high side, with what we already produce, we are looking at a sigificant increase in the world supply. It will drop prices.



Either way, you ignore the fact that ANWAR is not going to save America from its dependence on foreign oil, nor change the world oil price. You fail to look outside your frame and see that the entire economic system needs to be modified because oil is a finite resource that is running out quickly. The incredible growth experienced in the 20th/21st centuries has been funded on a piggy bank of FINITE, NON-RENEWABLE resources, and that growth cannot continue once those resources run out. The fact that I have to explain that to you demonstrates that you are a stupid, stupid man. OPEN YOUR EYES.

You are focusing on too s,mall of areas. There are several other places we can tap oil from. We just are not allowed to. Chances are, we can produce 100% of our own oil. I am pissed we do'n't have the opportunity to find out.



I'll also point out that, just like Scott warned us all about the coming credit crunch 4 years ago (3 years before it happened), people like me have been talking about peakoil for a decade, and those really in the know have been talking about it for 25 years, same with climate change - they were both big issues in 1990-02 before the lobbyists buried them. If the world had started to act on these problems 25 years ago we could probably have avoided the looming crises, but the problem is that no-one was listening then, and no-one is really listening now. The ignorance and self-interest of the masses combines with spineless political leadership to maintain the status quo, and so shall it seemingly always be...

I don' agree with the peak oil assessments as normally speken of. Sure, the supply is not endless, but we keep dicovering more and more oil, and have no clear point of running out.

How would we have avoided the crisis? Only by not blocking the new oil fields! Untill we find good aternatives, we need oil. The only viable replacement we have now is Nuclear Power making Hydrogen fuel. These biofuels are not what they are cracked up to be, and other methods are lacking too.

[Wild Cobra]

Bump...

I would like somone who is solid in chemestry with the proper reference material tell me how much CO2 it would take in the atmosphere to change the ocean PH enough to damage it. I see it as next to impossible. Am I missing something?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'm going to answer all these points soon - right now I'm just about to submit a thesis (due Friday).

[RandomGuy]

Theres loads and LOADS of oil out in the gulf and off the coast of Florida, but thanks to enviromentalist wackos, no ones allowed to drill out there.

Great move Eviros!! THANK YOU!!!

The enviros won't be happy, until were all riding bikes, and living back in the stone age.


You mean like the "enviros" in the billion dollar fishing industries?
You mean like the "enviros" in the billion dollar tourism industries?
You mean like the "enviros" that own the trillion dollars or so of beach front property in those states?

There are a fuckuva lot of dollars at stake that are fighting widescale drilling and the risks of spills fucking things up and destroying entire industries.

(shrugs)

I gaurantee you that the capitalists in those industries and that own those assets are a *bit* better at stopping that drilling using armies of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists at state capitols than the "eviros" are there, sport.

You are guilty of drinking the right-wing cool-aid. :jekka

[RandomGuy]

we keep dicovering more and more oil, and have no clear point of running out.

Discovering oil and being able to get it out of the ground economically are two different things.

Large fields, as have already pretty much been discovered, take very little effort to get oil out of, and offer much higher total recoverable percentages.


The medium to small fields that are left here and there, take a lot more energy to get oil from and offer smaller percentages of total recoverable oil.

Less recoverable oil is being discovered than is being pumped and drilled. Peak oil says this trend will hold up after the "peak". We have seen this happening, which suggests the peak has passed. This doesn't mean there isn't a lot of oil left, it just means that there will be a much lower supply relative to demand.

Now we have to deal with this.

[RandomGuy]

Bump...

I would like somone who is solid in chemestry with the proper reference material tell me how much CO2 it would take in the atmosphere to change the ocean PH enough to damage it. I see it as next to impossible. Am I missing something?

You need two things.

A good sample of the basic plankton that form the basis of the food chain, and the PH range at which they can thrive on.

Once you have your range you simply have to study basic pressures and so forth to figure out the ultimate effects.

They have already noted some PH effects from carbonic acids formed from CO2, so it should be fairly straighforward to simply extrapolate based on this data.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Discovering oil and being able to get it out of the ground economically are two different things. then why are other countries taking out 100 year leases no more than 50 miles off florida and the gulf of mexico

Large fields, as have already pretty much been discovered, take very little effort to get oil out of, and offer much higher total recoverable percentages.


The medium to small fields that are left here and there, take a lot more energy to get oil from and offer smaller percentages of total recoverable oil.then why are other countries taking out 100 year leases no more than 50 miles off florida and the gulf of mexico?

Less recoverable oil is being discovered than is being pumped and drilled. Peak oil says this trend will hold up after the "peak". We have seen this happening, which suggests the peak has passed. then why are other countries taking out 100 year leases no more than 50 miles off florida and the gulf of mexico?This doesn't mean there isn't a lot of oil left, it just means that there will be a much lower supply relative to demand.

Now we have to deal with this.then why are other countries taking out 100 year leases no more than 50 miles off florida and the gulf of mexico?

[RandomGuy]

then why are other countries taking out 100 year leases no more than 50 miles off florida and the gulf of mexico


I assume you are talking about this:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/its-official-cuba-hires-china-to-drill.html

Yawn.

1) Cuba doesn't give a rat's ass about US fishing industry
2) Cuba doesn't give a rat's ass about US real estate.
3) Cuba doesn't give a rat's ass about US tourism.
4) 36 wells is rather miniscule, and that "50 miles" bit was the distance measured to the drilling from the southermost of the Florida keys.

Please don't make it sound like some "other country" is hovering just outside the 50 mile limit in thousands of miles of coastline. It's misleadning, bordering on outright lying. All of those wells are in one region that is closer to Cuba than the US, if you will look at the map, dumbass.

Why should I be worried about this again?

Seriously, what is your point?

[tlongII]

We have more oil reserves than all of the middle east countries combined. We just aren't drilling it due to liberal propagandists' fear mongering. I believe this truth will become self evident to the general public soon as we continue to see gas prices skyrocket. We need to drill this oil to save the economy.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, you ignore the evidence. ANWAR is projected to have 10.4bil barrels of oil, which is about 1 year, 3 months worth of oil for the US. It is NOT a lot of oil when you use 23,000,000 barrels a day as the US does. The problem is overconsumption of a finite non-renewable resource.


Consider this from Fact Sheet: Reducing Gas Prices and Foreign Oil Dependence (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080618-4.html):


1. Increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Experts believe that areas under leasing prohibitions on the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. Actual resources may be greater, but we will not know until exploration is allowed. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to much of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances – and a dramatic increase in oil prices – these Congressional restrictions have become outdated and counterproductive.

* Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. President Bush calls on the House and Senate to pass such good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the States the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores and ensure the environment is protected. There is also an Executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, the President will lift this Executive prohibition.

2. Tap into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other processes. In one major deposit – the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming – there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If it can be fully recovered, it would equal more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports.

* Oil shale is a highly promising resource. For many years, the high cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit, but today, companies are investing in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient. While the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil.

* Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. Last year, Democratic leaders used the omnibus spending bill to insert a provision blocking oil shale leasing on Federal lands – President Bush calls on Congress to remove that provision immediately.

3. Permit exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in a small fraction of ANWR's 19.6 million acres, yet President Clinton vetoed the bill. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres – about 0.01 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain – America could produce an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This is the equivalent of roughly two decades of imported crude oil from Saudi Arabia.

* Scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife. These techniques are currently being utilized successfully in other areas. President Bush urges Members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.

4. Expand and enhance our refinery capacity. It has been 30 years since our Nation built a new refinery, and upgrades in our refining capacity are urgently needed. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. America now imports millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad, imposing needless costs on American consumers and depriving American workers of good jobs.

* President Bush is proposing measures to expedite the refinery permitting process. The President proposes that challenges to refineries and other related energy project permits must be brought before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days of the issuance of a permit decision. In addition, the President proposes that the Secretary of Energy be empowered to establish binding deadlines for permit decisions and to ensure that the various levels of approval required in the refinery permitting process are all handled in a timely way. And Congress should allow new refineries to be built on abandoned military bases.

If ANWR is large enough to replace Saudi Arabia's oil for 20 years, then think about adding that 18 billion and some oil shale too. We can be oil independant.

[tp2021]

http://media.fukung.net/images/7493/26419.jpg

[Extra Stout]

The United States actually has more oil than the rest of the world combined. Also, adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't cause warming, it actually causes the air to be a comfortable 68 degrees, like a global San Diego. Glaciers are actually growing and populations are increasing. When I was down in the Amazon last week, I spotted 11 new species of frog that weren't there last time.

If it weren't for Democrats, we'd be able to exploit our 589 brazillion barrels of oil reserves. Gas would cost 5 cents a gallon and we could all drive Chevy Tahoes. We don't even need the Middle East. We're in Iraq in spite of the fact we don't need them, simply because we love freedom that much.

But, see, Democrats are all secret jihadist Muslims who were in on 9/11, and they want to take over America and kidnap your Christian children to be their sex slaves. They rigged it so we get oil from the Middle East because they want their fellow Muslims to get rich and help them take over the world.

The Democrats want gas to cost $10 a gallon so you become desperate. Then they come to your house and say, "Convert to Islam and get free gas." It's all very tricky. Once Obama gets in office, then they blow up all the churches, and declare him the leader of the new global caliphate.

If you don't send this to your 10 closest friends today, radical Democrat Muslims will behead a kitten.

[Don Quixote]

Extra: Decent caricature. I'd give it 6 out of 10.

So when do you plan to do the global-warming believers?

[Nbadan]

We have more oil reserves than all of the middle east countries combined. We just aren't drilling it due to liberal propagandists' fear mongering. I believe this truth will become self evident to the general public soon as we continue to see gas prices skyrocket. We need to drill this oil to save the economy.

:lmao

I don't know who's caricature is funnier, Stout's or Tlong's

[Cry Havoc]

The United States actually has more oil than the rest of the world combined.

As far as I know, this is false. Russia presently has the largest amount of natural resources, including oil, within it's borders. The problem is that it's all buried under perma-frost. They can't even speculate how much is in the soil of that country, but given it's size, it's probably a phenomenal amount, if we can ever get to it.

Just food for thought.

[Extra Stout]

As far as I know, this is false. Russia presently has the largest amount of natural resources, including oil, within it's borders. The problem is that it's all buried under perma-frost. They can't even speculate how much is in the soil of that country, but given it's size, it's probably a phenomenal amount, if we can ever get to it.

Just food for thought.
You are a liberal liar and probably a terrorist.

[Extra Stout]

Extra: Decent caricature. I'd give it 6 out of 10.

So when do you plan to do the global-warming believers?
Do you think I'm just here to entertain you? Am I a clown to you? Is that what I am?

[Don Quixote]

No ... I'm giving you credit. You're good at poking fun at religious and conservative values, yet I suspect it's because you are one.

I'm challenging you to do the same to the other side.

And, yes .... dance!!

[Cry Havoc]

You are a liberal liar and probably a terrorist.

This is totally false. And if you want to argue about it, my RPG and my trio of Ak-47s will show you how American I can be!

[Extra Stout]

No ... I'm giving you credit. You're good at poking fun at religious and conservative values, yet I suspect it's because you are one.

I'm challenging you to do the same to the other side.

And, yes .... dance!!
In a world where "Stuff White People Like" exists, any contribution I could make would be both inferior and superfluous.