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

I would think that somebody who firmly believes that CO2 and the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming would want this to stop because of the perceived dangers of global warming, not because we are running out of fossil fuel. Whether the supply of oil is unlimited or not is therefore quite immaterial to his argument.

What is your take on that one, Foxy?

The argument I get from Cheney's take, however, is that the supply of oil remains plentiful for the needs of the world and is quite affordable at least for the time being. There is no urgent need for a broadscale alternative.

Cheney does not discount serious issues involved with the use of natural resources. For instance, continuing to burn fossil fuels will pump more carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere, adding to the already worsening greenhouse conditions. Those fuels still will be available to those who can afford the price. "We're still going to have to use fuels, but we have to manage that use better."

"The point is that we have to have members of the public who are not geologists and who know something about mineral resources. There are going to be some important policy decisions in the next decades, so we need to have some smart voters," he said. "We can start in colleges by dispelling myths in courses for students who are not going to become professional geoscientists."

Foxfyre wrote:

The argument I get from Cheney's take, however, is that the supply of oil remains plentiful for the needs of the world and is quite affordable at least for the time being. There is no urgent need for a broadscale alternative.

I'm not sure if he really say so - it least not what has been published until now and by him on this subject.

Quote:

Cheney does not discount serious issues involved with the use of natural resources. For instance, continuing to burn fossil fuels will pump more carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere, adding to the already worsening greenhouse conditions. Those fuels still will be available to those who can afford the price. "We're still going to have to use fuels, but we have to manage that use better."

"The point is that we have to have members of the public who are not geologists and who know something about mineral resources. There are going to be some important policy decisions in the next decades, so we need to have some smart voters," he said. "We can start in colleges by dispelling myths in courses for students who are not going to become professional geoscientists."

(same source as previous)


We might know more when results of tomorrows discussion at the Geological Society of America's annual meeting are presented.
(The presentation there is not alone by Cheney but by Andrew Buddington of Spokane Community College as well, btw.)

The argument I get from Cheney's take, however, is that the supply of oil remains plentiful for the needs of the world and is quite affordable at least for the time being. There is no urgent need for a broadscale alternative.

"The most common question I get is, 'When are we going to run out of oil?' The correct response is, 'Never,'" said Cheney. "It might be a heck of a lot more expensive than it is now, but there will always be some oil available at a price, perhaps $10 to $100 a gallon."

I think that's what you think, but many of your fellow AGW proponents certainly often make their contempt for the oil companies a huge component of their rhetoric. It's almost as if the oil companies capped the wells and closed their doors today, the world would be wonderful.

his point in the specific piece I posted is that we have plenty of oil for our needs in the near term. That does go against the opinion of those who say that we're fast running out of oil.

Those fuels still will be available to those who can afford the price.

Let me try to interprete that in a different way: we will be running out of oil, and at one point it will become too expensive to simply burn it or use it to fuel our cars. However, we will never completely run out of oil, because by the time oil will be as expensive as gold or uranium, we will have stopped burning it.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think that's what you think, but many of your fellow AGW proponents certainly often make their contempt for the oil companies a huge component of their rhetoric. It's almost as if the oil companies capped the wells and closed their doors today, the world would be wonderful.

I would wish you would eventually refrain from addressing someone (even implicitly) as "all you people". If you want to know what I think, you can simply ask me about my opinion on a certain topic instead of making assumptions based on what "all you people" are saying. I'm not really into groupthink.

Foxfyre wrote:

his point in the specific piece I posted is that we have plenty of oil for our needs in the near term. That does go against the opinion of those who say that we're fast running out of oil.

That's not what he is saying, though. He is saying that

Quote:

Those fuels still will be available to those who can afford the price.

He doesn't make any prediction whether the price of $100 per gallon will be reached next year or a hundred years from now. All he is saying is that we won't be running out of oil.

Britons are the worst energy wasters in Europe, according to a survey of 5,000 people across the continent. The study found UK citizens admitting to 32 energy-wasting actions a week on average, more than twice as many as the most efficient citizens polled, the Germans

The last one leaving the room always switches the lights off here :wink:



Guardian report: Energy-wasting Britons rank top for failing to see the light

I was shocked at this. I have turned off the heat in the guest bedroom. :wink:

Steve 41oo wrote:

I was shocked at this. I have turned off the heat in the guest bedroom. :wink:

That's okay, she's used to such.

Here is some bad news for the AGW theorists and good news for those who know that the world and its economy run on oil and we will likely need to find ways to effectively live with that reality.

Britons are the worst energy wasters in Europe, according to a survey of 5,000 people across the continent. The study found UK citizens admitting to 32 energy-wasting actions a week on average, more than twice as many as the most efficient citizens polled, the Germans

They are the worst wasters but also the biggest eco-hysterics: see their absurd recycling policies (and fines), their stupidly restrictive land allocation policy which make real estate price skyrocket and send thousands of Britons to settle in France each year (welcome to them BTW), their car carbon tax, their Royal Accademy sermoning letter to Exxon...

I disagree: they just had to learn the "new rules" within a too short period.

Meet Britain's first recycling martyr... the man with a criminal record for using the wrong bin

(We seldom laughed so much in France as a dozen years ago or so, when suddenly the smallest hamlet had an own huge déchetterie ... but the waste was still collected in black plastic bags without any difference to what was inside :wink: )

The government will today agree plans for a climate change bill setting new long-term targets to cut carbon emissions in Britain in response to intense pressure from environmental campaigners.

An independent body to advise on whether government policies will meet the green targets will be created under proposals to be tabled by the environment secretary, David Miliband, when he makes a presentation to the environment and energy cabinet committee today. The bill will be in the next Queen's Speech on November 15.