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

gungasnake wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.

Stop taking the ignorance pills for a week or two and the feeling will go away.

Isn't the US taxpayer paying BILLION of dollars to secure the oil fields in Iraq....so that in a few years Exxon can sell it to us at the pump?

gungasnake wrote:

okie wrote:

Given today's culture and economy, I seriously doubt we could live without oil and gas, without catastrophic economic collapse, leading to massive starvation, rampant disease outbreaks, wars, etc. I personally think oil is just as essential as food, because without it, many people would have no access to food and other essentials.

What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.

I doubt that very seriously, gunga. You would seriously cripple and maim the economy of this country in a very profound and sudden way, and the effects would be devastating. We might recover eventually after all of the serious effects had taken their toll, but we would not be the power in the world that we have been, no way. You are talking about two thirds of the oil that we consume. It would be an interesting experiment, but I would certainly not be dumb enough to try it to see how bad it might be.

maporsche wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.

Stop taking the ignorance pills for a week or two and the feeling will go away.

Isn't the US taxpayer paying BILLION of dollars to secure the oil fields in Iraq....so that in a few years Exxon can sell it to us at the pump?

As I noted, only somebody taking ignorance pills could think that. It would have been vastly cheaper simply to have gone on paying Saddam Hussein for the fricking oil. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein poisoned the US Senate Office Building with ****ing anthrax.

maporsche wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.

Stop taking the ignorance pills for a week or two and the feeling will go away.

Isn't the US taxpayer paying BILLION of dollars to secure the oil fields in Iraq....so that in a few years Exxon can sell it to us at the pump?

As I noted, only somebody taking ignorance pills could think that. It would have been vastly cheaper simply to have gone on paying Saddam Hussein for the fricking oil. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein poisoned the US Senate Office Building with ****ing anthrax.

Ban all motorsports? What else would you ban? You are beginning to sound like a "government can fix anything" kind of guy, not a free marketer. I don't buy it. I don't think you are considering all the pitfalls.

Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Surprising Truth About Global Warming



Order it here... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0525950141&itm=2

""Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.""

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth''s climate was ""ultimately futile.""

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN''s so-called ""solutions.""

""Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity''s real and pressing problems,"" the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (Canada Free Press)

You are a fool. If this had been the reason, we would have had (and still have) more international support. Further, the reason we went there was because of the alleged ties between Osama and Saddam. Bush went in knowing full well that even if no WMDs were found, he could always dismiss it as misinformation.

He should have been impeached. I don't care if the information he had said to go. I understand that when you are the President, you have to take risks, but when you fail, there is a consequence to face, hence the risk part. If he had bad information, he get's no sympathy from me. He should have had the right information.

The only hope is that those industries to suffer would be replaced by other industries to replace the vacuum of energy required,

yes , that's a reasonable assumption .
i am assuming that you agree that industries using LESS energy would start to fill the void ; that's happened before and will probably happen again - it's usually called PROGRESS , i believe . hbg

however the one caveat is that those replacements are not nearly as efficient, and they will be much more costly, thus burdening an already devastated economy.

is the U.S. economy "already devastated" ?
i'm sure there would be less demand for all kinds of cheap stuff coming in from all over the world , but i have seen no proof that it would devastate the U.S. economy .
the U.S. economy was operating quite well even before walmart came along - and walmart will at some time replaced by another business - nothing unusual about that . hbg

Carbon myths

Quote:

Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions

Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward

There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.

As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports

David Luhnow
Geraldo Samor
The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006



RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.


To see how, take a look at Gildo Ferreira, a 39-year-old real-estate executive, who pulled his VW Fox into a filling station one recent afternoon. Instead of reaching for the gasoline, he spent $29 to fill up his car on ethanol made from sugar cane, an option that's available at 29,000 gas stations from Rio to the Amazon. A comparable tank of gasoline would have cost him $36. "It's cheaper and it's made here in Brazil," Mr. Ferreira says of ethanol. If the price of oil stays at current levels, he can expect to save about $350 a year.

Foxfyre, that is why ethanol is not the future of our energy independence....and the exact reason that plug in hybrids and electric cars ARE. There are now cars that will go 400 miles on a single charge....add a small gasoline engine to recharge the batteries and there you go. The infrastructure is already in place (electricity everywhere, gas stations everywhere).

ethanol is what the car manufactures want because they can still sell engine parts (electric motors don't require near as much maintenance as ICE engines do).

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre, that is why ethanol is not the future of our energy independence....and the exact reason that plug in hybrids and electric cars ARE. There are now cars that will go 400 miles on a single charge....add a small gasoline engine to recharge the batteries and there you go. The infrastructure is already in place (electricity everywhere, gas stations everywhere).

ethanol is what the car manufactures want because they can still sell engine parts (electric motors don't require near as much maintenance as ICE engines do).

And exactly how are we going to produce the electricity those "plug in" cars require?

Our Subaru Forrester is not a hybrid but does get 35 mpg highway