Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

cjhsa wrote:

Even as a kid, I never bought into the idea that oil came from dinosaurs and prehistoric plantlife.

Still, even if it is a product of the earth's core and mantle, it does't seem to be renewing itself very quickly. Mexico is a prime example.

No, the natural process seems to be really slow for sure. But that's why I think it is feasible that there might be engineers and scientists who are looking at ways to maybe hurry the process up. That sulphur mine I cited was sooooo easy to mine in its early years, but as the years passed, it became more and more difficult to extract the stuff profitably. Other such mines close. My son and his team believed they could keep the mine profitable and they did.

There's simply no substitute for good old fashioned yankee ingenuity.

And D, I've never thought the problem was an oil shortage. The problem is the ability for one small part of the world to hold a lot of the rest of us oil-dependent countries hostage because they have oil we have to have. And the problem is alos in our ability to turn the crude oil into usable products. Capacity is capacity, and our refineries are operating pretty much at capacity year round.

And I maintain that it is those environmental wackos I mentioned earlier that are at least part of the reason we are in the fix we are in.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No, the natural process seems to be really slow for sure. But that's why I think it is feasible that there might be engineers and scientists who are looking at ways to maybe hurry the process up.

Solitairs, e.g. are surely as nice, really wonderful, compared to natural diamonds ...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And D, I've never thought the problem was an oil shortage. The problem is the ability for one small part of the world to hold a lot of the rest of us oil-dependent countries hostage because they have oil we have to have

Ah, yes, the voice of the colonialist: These other countries have resources that we need. How unjust! We have no choice but to take what's rightfully ours. After all, we're civilized...

0 Replies

D'art, Don't forget the most aggressive and powerful in the world.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And D, I've never thought the problem was an oil shortage. The problem is the ability for one small part of the world to hold a lot of the rest of us oil-dependent countries hostage because they have oil we have to have

Ah, yes, the voice of the colonialist: These other countries have resources that we need. How unjust! We have no choice but to take what's rightfully ours. After all, we're civilized...

That surely was said tongue in cheek, d'Art!
Even Foxfyre won't have written seriously.

0 Replies

foxfyre- Did you get the incredibly erudite answer to your post from Mr. Cyclopitchorn? He said: You are a laugh a minute, Foxfyre.

I guess his reasoned rebuttal really destroyed all of your links, did it not, Foxfyre.

The truth is--when the left wing can't respond to evidence, they blurt out something puerile- like Your a laugh a minute.

***********************************************************

Notice to the left wing liberals--I have posted evidence on this thread that the theories of Global Warming are full of holes. No one has rebutted them. Imay post them again. If the left wing liberals have trouble reading them, they may wish to get someone to interpret them.

Cyclopitchorn talks blithely about non polluting energy sources like Windmills. This is a good idea but there are TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS WHICH CYCLOPITCHORN HAS NOT ADDRESSED. The first problem is obvious even to the left wing liberals. Windmills are useful as an energy source only in places where the wind blows often enough and long enough to provide energy BUT that is not the major problem. The major problem comes from the hypocrites like the conscience of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, who has flatly rejected the idea of having some Windmills off the Massachusetts shores where he has his family hideway. I am sure that Cyclopitchorn did not want to consider that bit of hypocrisy.

There is, according to geologists, a large amount of oil just off the Florida coastline which would, if tapped, would provide enough oil to make us independent at the same time that alernative energy sources are being worked on and developed.

Mr. Walter Hinteler indicated that the USA is one of the major "polluters" since the USA has so many automobiiles that spew CO2. One of the items he does not mention is that there is a tradeoff. Smaller autos, which would obvioulsy produce less are far more dangerous and would result in an additional 2 to 3 thousand deaths a year on the US Highways.

0 Replies

I must, of course, reference Mr. Timberlandko, who always knows what he is talking about---

The primary holdup for electric cars is technology - the power density acheivable with autonomous, self-contained electrical energy storage and/or generation devices, along with the economics, simply fail to meet the requirements of general mass-market motive power. No conspiracy is involved, and anyone proposing such might be the case is full of ****; research and development is being, and long has been, tossed at the problem to the tune of scores of Billions of dollars a year, world-wide. Particularly interested in finding a viable solution, and a major source of research funding, are the militaries of the world. Also very active in research and development are the heavy transportation industries; railroads, trucking, and maritime transport. Odds are that eventually the research and development will pay off, but for it to do so first there must be breakthroughs in many, many different areas.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

D'artagnan wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And D, I've never thought the problem was an oil shortage. The problem is the ability for one small part of the world to hold a lot of the rest of us oil-dependent countries hostage because they have oil we have to have

Ah, yes, the voice of the colonialist: These other countries have resources that we need. How unjust! We have no choice but to take what's rightfully ours. After all, we're civilized...

That surely was said tongue in cheek, d'Art!
Even Foxfyre won't have written seriously.

Well thank you Walter. I might even have to take back my barb shot at you personally earlier today. I do appreciate a voice of reason in here, even if it's yours. Smile

Actually I did mean it, but not the way D, and apparently you, took it.
We are dependent on Middle East oil, and we are so dependent that they literally can hold us as economic hostages. They can charge whatever they wish knowing full well that we have no choice but to pay it. If we tick them off enough, they can withhold their oil and bring us to our knees. This is the situation, pure and simple.

I at no time and in no place said or even suggested that they did not have a right to do this, nor did we have a right to take it from them. We do have a right to protect our national interests when some idiot, such as Saddam Hussein, decides to corner the oil market for himself. Even when we protected our oil supply at that time, however, we did it at the invitation and request of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and with the consent of most of the rest of the Arab world.

So the Colonist analogy was a cheap shot, and a gentle thwap for you, D, since you almost never do that kind of thing.

The solution is of course to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and we probably have enough untapped reserves to do just that if we just free up those evil oil companies to go get it. The more we can supply our own needs, the littler economic club any other country can hold over our head.

I read somewhere recently, however, that if all Americans parked their cars and used bicycles or hired rickshaws or something, turned off their TVs and air conditioners, and dug out the old coal oil lamps, it would save something like 42000 barrels of oil a day? That would be the production of ten high producing oil wells, not even a drop in the bucket against all the energy needs of commerce and industry. If somebody has a link to anything like that, I would like to see it. I can't remember where I read it.

0 Replies

A great point, Foxfyre.

And, I will add that I posted "evidence" which appears to make the claims of the radical "sky is falling" leftish Scientists, moot. I ask the purveyors of the Gore lunacy that the earth is "finished" in ten years to rebut the evidence I give below. If no one rebuts my evidence, IT STANDS!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blatham posts a blurb which proves nothing. It is a self-congratulatory press release. I am not sure of Mr. Blatham's espertise in this area but I will assume that he is at least familiar with the rudiments of the discussion.

First of all, the last total and comprehensive review of the alleged "global warming was done by the IPCC. That is, of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control and is a very large group of scientists backed by the auspices of the UN and the WHO. I post this only for those who do not know who they are.

Now, I ask Mr. Blatham a direct question which he may or may not either be able to answer or choose to answer( but that will be acceptable since I do not write to convert Mr.Blatham,but rather to show how fragile the evidence presented by the Global Warming theorists really is when the evidence is examined in depth.

Does Mr. Blatham know that the COMPUTER SIMULATIONS( yes, that is what they are) utilized by the Global Warming theorists, are based on a STUDY OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES?

First of all, these SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS ARE INDEED FLAWED( The IPCC themselves admit it) because the temperatures do not go back far enough and because not ALL of the planet's temperatures are gathered--Jungles etc.

Secondly, and most vitally important, Satellites in the troposphere which measure temperature haev found VIRTUALLY NO INCREASE. The IPCC admits that this is also correct.

I eagerly await Mr. Blatham's rebuttal of my points. I will not, of course, entertain any puerile responses referring to execrtory functions. I do assume that Mr. Blatham is older than fourteen!

____________________________________________________________

I have additional points on this thread which give Scientific evidence that the perils of Global Warming have been highly exaggerated. I will wait to see whether there is anyone who will try to rebut the above/ If no one can, I will post additional evidence from other posts I have made on this thread which have not been rebutted!

0 Replies

In regard to oil being generated as we speak, common sense tells us it is not at any rate comparable to consumption. Geologists know oil fields may have been formed millions of years ago, not yesterday, so what makes them think they are going to be reformed tomorrow? The theory that reserves can magically rejuvenate themselves in a few years or a hundred years or so is ridiculous on its face. Sure, some geologists claim evidence, but if you knew geologists like I do, you would be skeptical. Same principle can be applied to global warming "experts." Far fetched extrapolated projections, otherwise known as computer models, requiring multitudes of all kinds of "ifs" to be true, are simply a bit too much to swallow hook line and sinker.

Cyclops, the impacts of windmills and solar panels, I agree they seem pretty benign, but have you considered the numbers of these things required if you replace a comparable amount of energy that oil now produces? How about the toxic things used to produce solar panels, and the mining in ecologically sensitive areas to produce enough panels to be significant?

In the case of windmills, what happens when the wind quits blowing? And I don't care how windy it is most of the time in some areas, it does quit blowing sometimes. If you cover half the panhandle of Texas with windmills, are we going to wake up to the possibility that the wind being captured and converted to energy is possibly altering the weather patterns? Not much chance now, but with the numbers required to make real impacts, has anyone considered this. In the case of solar panels, has anyone considered the impact of solar energy lowering the surface temperatures of the earth, causing rare species to die, and plants native to the areas to die? Not happening now perhaps, but the amount of solar now is so miniscule, we really do not have enough data to project what would happen.

I am not a tree hugger, so I am not particularly concerned with windmills and solar impacts, but I am simply suggesting that the tree huggers need to consider the same concerns for the beloved environment in the case of their chosen panaceas to the energy problem, that perhaps they are not the panaceas they think they are.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

They can charge whatever they wish knowing full well that we have no choice but to pay it. If we tick them off enough, they can withhold their oil and bring us to our knees. This is the situation, pure and simple.

Hmm, that evil capitalism ...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I read somewhere recently, however, that if all Americans parked their cars and used bicycles or hired rickshaws or something, turned off their TVs and air conditioners, and dug out the old coal oil lamps, it would save something like 42000 barrels of oil a day? That would be the production of ten high producing oil wells, not even a drop in the bucket against all the energy needs of commerce and industry. If somebody has a link to anything like that, I would like to see it. I can't remember where I read it.

Great point. I saw a sign in Kansas somewhere that indicates just ONE good gas well can provide energy for something like 7,500 homes. I believe it. I can't recall for sure the number of homes, but I think 7,500 was correct, I know it was thousands. Anyway, the point is, what could possibly be more efficient and less intrusive than that?

People are ignorantly unaware of just how beautifully efficient that oil and gas really is.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
They can charge whatever they wish knowing full well that we have no choice but to pay it. If we tick them off enough, they can withhold their oil and bring us to our knees. This is the situation, pure and simple.

Hmm, that evil capitalism ...

Yup, and it works every time. And it has no doubt been the cause of 99% of the major commercial and industrial advances of our time. It might even generate a solution to America's oil shortages.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
They can charge whatever they wish knowing full well that we have no choice but to pay it. If we tick them off enough, they can withhold their oil and bring us to our knees. This is the situation, pure and simple.

Hmm, that evil capitalism ...

Yes sir, and I love it. Go ride your bicycle if thats what you want and quit compainin.

Why would it bring us to our knees if oil was so useless and unimportant? hmmm....................

Walter, if you have a better idea than oil, do it. And if you have a better idea than capitalism, have at it. I prefer to stay here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre- Perhaps if the" evil" capitalistic system were to be applied in the Socialistic Utopia of Germany, they would not be burdened with a ridiculously high 11% Unemployment Rate!!

0 Replies

Here is another piece of evidence showing problems with the concept of "Global Warming" which has not been rebutted. Until it is rebutted, it STANDS as a reminder to the "Global Warming" crew that they are mistaken in some of their calculations:

Problem No. 1--"AS ESTIMATED BY CURRENT MODELS"

see Kerr, Richard A. 1997a "Climate Change" Greenhouse forecasting still cloudy" Science 276:1.040-2

quote:

"Most modelers agree that climate models will not be capable of linking global warming to human actions for at least ten years"

(AT LEAST 10 YEARS--THAT WOULD BE 2007-Kerr wrote in 1997)

Problem No 2--

"Data seem to indicate that there has been regular recurrences of episodes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in a roughly 1500 year climatic cycle over the last 140,000 years WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE 1000 YEAR PERIOD I S T O O S H O R T
TO REVEAL THE RELEVANT CLIMATIC PATTERN"

See Broecker, Wallace S. "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global"?
Science 291(5,508):1497-9

Problem No. 3- Natural Forcings MAY have contributed to the observed warmings in the first half of the twentieth century BUT DO NOT explain the warming in the second half of the second century---

But the question that must be answered and must be answered by the COMPUTER MODELS is---Not whether the climate is affected by CO2 but HOW MUCH. If the effect on the climate of an increased amount of co2 in the atmosphere is slight, global warming may not be particularly important.

THE IPCC'S MODELS USING S U R F A C E TEMPERATURES FROM ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH SAYS THAT THE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED BY 0.4 TO 0.8 FROM 1856- TO 2000 AND WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS DUE TO NATURAL FORCING.

BUT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS USED BY THE IPCC ARE FLAWED. The IPCC acknowledged the problem of tropospheric temperature in MODELS and those in OBSERVATIONS--SEE ipcc 2001a:12:executive summary---

Actually, the observed Troposhperic temperature, as measured by the NOAA satellites WHICH ARE MUCH MORE ACCURATE AND COVER ALL OF THE AREAS OF THE EARTH( which are not covered by the Ipcc's surface measurements, as they admit) show essentially NO UPWARD TREND IN TEMPERATURE.

The last problem-No. 4 ---refers to the section which reads, "Uncertainties in Forcings"

Too many problems- but the major problem is the possible inaccuracy of the information fed into the COMPUTER MODELS and, more importantly, the gap between the satellite measurements and the surface measurements.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Foxfyre- Perhaps if the" evil" capitalistic system were to be applied in the Socialistic Utopia of Germany, they would not be burdened with a ridiculously high 11% Unemployment Rate!!

Who was it recently--GeorgeOB1???--who was commenting on Germany style socialism and how it worked very well for a long time. Their unemployment rate is down to 11%? Things must be improving there. But I think a lot of European nations sort of ignored some oncoming trains, but I do think they'll work themselves out of the messes of the varous trainwrecks. I think people granted a reasonable amount of personal freedom and afforded reasonable human rights always will.

I'm mostly concerned about the oncoming trains here and there seem to be an awful lot of them lately. It's time to revive all of our good old fashioned Yankee ingenuity and derail some of them I think. What I don't want to do is derail the good trains, and I think we might do just that with Gore-style environmental nonsense.

0 Replies

Actually, those 11% was the highest rate we got - do you know, btw, that within that number are all people who get jobless/social benefits since five, ten years? All due to the socialist system invented in 1874 by Bismark.

0 Replies

Of course, Foxfyre and if you would review the economics of the past fifty years ( as I am certain you have done) you would find evidence of measures put into play in theUSA which the Socialist Countries in the EU would never touch because of thier "cradle to grave"philosophies.

What have we done to enhance most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen?

1. TAX CUTS( which the Socialist abhor) to stimulate the economy( Kennedy, Reagan and GW Bush)

2. NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN STATUS FOR CHINA, ACCEPTANCE OF GLOBALIZATION AS A FACT OF LIFE.

3. As Tom Friedman states as a sine qua non of economic well being--a transparent economic system.

Some on the left decry our deficits. They are not aware that the USA has been in debt almost constantly since the beginning of its existence. They are also not aware that a country's ability to handle its debt depends on the ratio between its TOTAL DEBT and ITS YEARLY GNP.

They are unaware that even if the total debt rises( it had indeed risen to enormous heights in World War II) if the government alllows industry to expand and jobs to open up , the RISE IN THE GNP WILL OUTPACE THE RISE IN THE DEBT LEVEL!!!

Of course, Foxfyre, those whose only objective is to denigrate Bush and the Republicans cannot view objective Economics in such a fashion. It undermines their whole campaign.

0 Replies

I might take Mr. Walter Hinteler up on that. He says that there is money coming to unemployed workers from the government. Imagine that!!

I know that is really good for a society. Money coming from the Treasury which has been put in by the sweat of workers to give to those who are indolent.

But I might feel like being indolent a while. How much would I get a week in American Dollars, Mr. Walter Hinteler, if I were unemplyed in Germany?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know