Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)

[Nick M]

Pssstttt... Nick, That is not a CO2 chart??... It is a temp graph! It does not indicate or include any CO2 data???

Look at the CO2 data on the right side and argue with that...It's off the chart!

The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.


Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."

All he is pointing out is what I think. If nature makes 25 x more CO2 than man, then we are not the source of the change. The rising temps from the sun is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Aaron J Williams]

Ok, so I checked your link proving that The Friends of Science are funded by big oil and this is what I got:

DeSmogBlog reader Patrick Arnell very kindly spent a great deal of time connecting 20 of the more infamous signatories to Canadian climate change denial petition to the institutes and funding agencies that pay for their opinions. The resulting map is available here. Just "skip intro" and you'll be taken to the map, which shows pretty clearly what a complex web we're dealing with!

When you click on the HTML map it goes here:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

And I'll be darned if I can't find The Friends of Science listed anywhere!

However, here's one that has to be funded by big oil! (actually if you have a retirement plan that invests in index funds then you OWN big oil and by your logic anyone with a retirement plan would be invalidated to comment on global warming.)

Science News July 6, 1996:
Unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the latest United Nations report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented the draft of its most recent report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary."

Now if you will all excuse me, I must sign off for tonight as I have to read a 91 page report prepared by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations analizing the IPCC's 2001 report: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
It is here if you wish to join me
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Hopefully i'll have some conclusions drawn from it tomorrow.

 

[Joel W.]

The rising temps from the sun is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Nick: Ohhh You meant mine...lol...So let me get this straight, Now you say that CO2 is excessive, but that the sun is still the cause and not man, even though the sun cycle is in a down swing and the temp is still rising along with the CO2 levels (which is higher than ever recorded on the planet)

All the oil/coal we use, all the trees we cut down that use the CO2, and you don't see any connections.. hmmm ok, whatever..:icon_conf

Aaron:
In January of 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4" [42].

UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:

"We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach. There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags." [43]

The IPCC receives funding from UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme, UHHH OHHH!!!), WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments..


UN sponsers the OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM, <<<< Crap that is a long Wiki page!!!

Perhaps you may even have heard of the UN's "Oil for Food scandal" You smell that? Something stinks!!!

Make up your own mind guys... I am taking JJ's advice as this is very very lame and pointless.....

 

[Adjuster]

What's funny is that your liberal environmentalist friends will use the IPCC data when it suits them, and call it "funded by Big Oil" when it does not.

The facts are in Joel, and the sooner you pull your head out and realize it, the better for you, and everyone else in your positon. (That of following along with the other lemmings chanting that GW is evil, and we are evil for burning "fossil fuels" and driving our huge cars, and heating our huge homes, and eating so much food... Blah de fricking da...)

There is a group of people on this planet who belive that consumerism is evil, and that we should all live a very simple life based on growing food for ourselves, and if your not a farmer growing food, then you should live in a planned city and use wonderful forms of public transportation.
They call our current setup "Urban Sprawl" and they say it like you would say "Stinky baby shit filled diaper.."
They belive our urban lives where Dad commutes to work in his F250 4X4 that averages 9mpg, and Mom who shuttles the kids to school, dance classes, shopping and then possibly home for a microwave dinner and some mindless TV is the ultimate evil. Especially when you consider the average "urban" home is huge by world standards of living, and they use much more energy to heat and cool them than other living quarters in the rest of the world.
In fact, one of the MAJOR points of your environmentalist friends lives is to point out the excesses of our way of life. Enviro's love to point out how much fuel we use, how much energy we waste, and how many trees we cut down, the lakes we pollute, and the oceans we overharvest...
The whole idea of "Man Made/Caused Global Warming" is so tasty, so jucy to them, they latched onto it with a full set of teeth, and can't let go. Even when they are shown how utterly absurd the idea is, and science tests the theory, and finds it to be flawed, and yet they still hold on. (Saying things like "We know that man using all these hydrocarbons is wrong, evil and must be stopped, so we can make up lies, distort the truth and we will scare people into doing what we know is right for them, for their own good of course.." )
Environmentalists love to latch onto earthy ideas like Gaia or Mother Earth. They love worrshiping eagles, fish and mud worms because it makes them feel better about the earth, and they feel they must do their part to save the fish, birds and bugs at any cost before some selfish dolt wants to build a huge house there to enjoy the view, and burn lots of hydrocarbons to heat and cool that house.. (And drive the huge SUV to get to and from the job that pays for the house... ) That person should be happy to live in a city where they can ride clean and effective public transportation to work, better yet, they should live in the building where they work. What a great idea!

Ok, reality check again Joel.
You claim to be impartial, yet you strike me as a typical enviro nut. What the hell are you doing driving a Supra? You should own a Prius, or at the very most a diesel powered car that is converted to run on recycled fry oil.

Your a hypocrite Joel.

Sell your supra and buy a Prius, but only if you have to live in the urban sprawl there Joel. You should sell your huge house and move into downtown Seattle, or wheever it is that you work, and walk up and down the stairs to your job. (It's good for your heart, and it saves on the energy to run the elevator you know.) Just think, if you lived where you worked, you would not need a car at all, and Al Gore would be your best buddy then. (He's very anti-car you know. Says so right in his book. Cars are evil, and must be outlawed. The internal combustion engine is the scourge of the century, and has to be eliminated at all costs. **Parahrase, but you get the point.**

Dude, give it up.
Global warming theory is wrong, and will always be wrong as far as it being based on Human activity.
It's natural, and it's not going to stop or change depending on ANYTHING WE DO. So let it go, move to the building where you work, and sell your supra and walk your stairs. Just think, you'll be in such better health, you will look like Al Gore. He's a pillar of healthy living and eating right? Says so right in his book. Let's look at a few other loud liberals like Michael Moore... Now that's a fit guy for sure. He does not live in a huge house either, or drive vehicles that pollute. Neither does Martin Sheen, another great liberal environmentalist... I'm sure he walks to work and lives in a small energy saving apartment upstairs from the movie studios....

Interesting that all the hyprocrites I just mentioned, all live in urban sprawl, drive large cars, have huge houses and are the poster children for the liberal elite environmentalists. (Who manage to over look the leather shoes, belts and clothes made in 3rd world sweat shops, the Hummers and Escalades that deliver the stars to the events they passionately support out in the Suburbs, in the middle of that hated Urban Sprawl...)

Stop being a hypocrite, and pull your head out of your ass. You seem like a pretty smart guy, so I have hope for you.
If you can get over the fact that your liberal heros are hypocrites in the worst way, keep your Supra and find some new hero's. (The right is full of them.... LOL)

 

[p5150]

what do we have to lose? This is very arguable.

What do we have to gain? Economic benefits that go somewhere else besides oil and coal.

It doesnt seem that difficult to me.

 

[Joel W.]

Your a hypocrite Joel.

Dude, thanks to this thread, I just found out the truth, What is your excuse now??? See post 123 and 125 for more info here!

 

[Supracentral]

Tone it down a notch people...

Keep it civil.

 

[Adjuster]

Lose?
Gain?
Truth?

Very interesting concepts based on your version of reality.
I would venture to guess that a huge part of your life is hydrocarbon based. Everything you use that is made of plastic comes from hydrocarbons.
All the metal in your life is mined somewhere at the expense of birds, fish and bugs, and it's no problem at all IMHO.
Like wood products? (Like the desk your sitting at right now?) Well that takes cutting down trees, and growing new ones. (Just like man has been doing for a very long time.) I have no problem with cutting down trees and planting new ones. I encourge it. Infact, I think the whole idea of "old growth" forrest is absurd as "fossil fuels." Trees are only here an eyeblink in time at the most. They grow, are either cut down and turned into useful products or firewood, or they die, fall over and are turned into fertilizer for the next trees. The idea that bugs me is not harvesting the trees for so long they build up huge amounts of dead and overgrown debris, and then are ripe for fires that destroy everything that took decades and centuries to grow. What a waste IMHO.

If you use refined hydrocarbons for fuel, then you support big oil. Plain and simple. That's the truth for sure.

If you wear leather, your supporting the killing of cattle for that leather. Personally I like a good steak, and find that cows are great for many things, so I support the raising of cattle so we can kill them and use them however we like.
Same goes for fish and all the other edible animals on the planet. Mmm, tasty!

Should we be stewards of this planet? Yes, I belive we should be, and we can be, but not by making our food and supply sources a religious format to be worrishiped and protected from all harm. (Real or imagined.)

Take salmon for example. I was involved in a debate a few years ago where they were saying salmon were going to go extinct if we did not tear down a the dams on the Columbia river. Yep, Salmon were going to go extinct if we did not act now. It was going to affect the entire ecosystem... Blah blah blah.. It was a crisis situation, and we have to act now!

I stopped the whole discussion and brought it back to reality with one question and follow up.
Q: So all salmon are going to go extinct?
A: Yes!
Q: All salmon? Even the Salmon all over the world?
A: Well, of course not those salmon... But these will go EXTINCT!
Q: So, of all world salmon, are they in any danger of going extinct?
A: We don't know, but man is encroaching on habitat all over the world...
Q: So you don't know.
Pause where there was a very uncomfortable silence from the fish worshippers...
Q: Why are these salmon so special? Are they unique to the world?
A: No, they are very similar to salmon all over the Northern Hemisphere...
Q: So, what your telling me is this "herd" of salmon is in danger.
A: Yes! If you want to look at it that way, yes this group of salmon are in danger of going extinct.
Q: Can we raise these salmon anywhere else?
A: Well, sure, but it would not be their natural birth place...
Q: Does it matter to the fish?
More uncomforable silence..
So I just stopped the QA and explained a few things.
1) We have spent billions of dollars to protect a very common fish.
2) We need to look at this fish for what it is. A very tasty commodity that can be raised anywhere in the Northwest.
3) We need the power and water control more than we need more common fish that can be raised anywhere in the Northwest at our leisure.

The meeting pretty much went into bedlam at that point when everyone there realized the Salmon were not going extinct, and that the whole idea of tearing down dams for fish is insane.... (At least untill some liberal idiot comes back into power, and then we will have this whole discussion again I'm sure.)

So, excersise restraint, and be nice. I agree with this.
Nice thing about off topic is we get to say what we think is right, and I know that GW being tied to man's burning of hydrocarbons is totally wrong, and there is plenty of science out there to prove it. You just have to be willing to let go of the "earth is flat" mentality and look beyond what you think you know to be true. (Since so much of what we learn in school is totally bogus anyway, but you don't find that out till much later in life.)

 

[Joel W.]

Adjuster does have a point Mke.. I probably should not be a mod here any longer knowing what I know now. lol...

You can "dismiss" me anytime you want...

 

[Adjuster]

LOL, just come around to the "right way of thinking" and you'll be fine Joel

Love ya man, you sure have been passonate about this topic, but I belive the left leaning environmentalist propaganda has pulled you over to the "dark side" ... LOL

Which, if you listen to the environmnental line of dogma, is really the right way to live...
In harmony with your environment, loving everying and harming nothing. (Of course reality is you have compromise in all things to survive and thrive in this world.)

Have you seen that latest "Yellow Book" advertisement with David Carradine? It's so dang funny. (Totally eastern mystic coulture hits consumerism with a funny twist.)

 

[Joel W.]

LOL, just come around to the "right way of thinking" and you'll be fine Joel

I believe I just found my way out of the darkness thanks to you and this thread! If you want to pretend that everything is normal here, that is your flaw... Perhaps you just do not care and that is truely sad, but do not lecture me on morals, science and what is right and wrong when you have not proven shit here!!! I don't think you even bothered to read what I posted. If you did, you might understand what just happened here. I was some what like you when I first posted in this thread, but thankfully I am smarter now!!!

Love ya man, you sure have been passonate about this topic, but I belive the left leaning environmentalist propaganda has pulled you over to the "dark side" ... LOL

Passion and education are greater than ignorance and denial in my book...You call it left and right. I call it right and wrong...

Ignorance is bliss dude! I am pissed off here, yes!! Not at you, but at myself for not doing my own research earlier and permitting my government to screw us all... My beliefs are based on logic, science and fact... Yours are based on hope, selfishness, greed and denial!! I truely pity you.

 

[Adjuster]

Oh, OK then.

If your going to be ignorant when I'm being nice, then have at it mod boy.

Your clearly so caught up in what you think you know, that your willing to ignore quite a few people on here showing you, very patienly I might add, that your pet theory of man caused global warming is completly false.

You cling like a wet sheet to what you have been taught by people with an agenda, and claim that any information to the contrary is paid for by "Big Oil" when you can't notice that the same propaganda you spout is paid for by "Elite Liberal Environmentalists" with an agenda to limit our freedom to fit their twisted idea of what's right.

I poked fun at a few of them, (Yourself included) but really they are all the same.

They own cars, yet complain about fuel mileage, and the excesses of man.
They live in hosues, yet do not want us to cut down trees.
They use electricity, but don't like dams, coal buring power plants or heaven forbid, nuclear power! (Try running your life on solar or wind dude.)
They use computers, but don't want to mine, drill or otherwise find resourses to get the plastic, steel, copper and other "parts" needed to build those same computers, microwaves, camp stoves and you get the point, EVERYTHING they use is made from something, and they are offended, and against getting that something because it might harm a fish, bird or bug.

These same people are against urban sprawl, but they live in the suburbs for the most part. (At least the elite ones do.)

They are classic hypocrites.
If your proud to be one, then good for you.

I stand by my poking at you with the question.
"What the hell are you doing driving a Supra?"

Your Supra pollutes more than a new vehicle would.
Your Supra burns more "fossil fuels" than a new vehicle would.
Your liberal elite friends would dissaprove of your Supra in that it's not a hybrid, electric or fuel sipping.
How fast do you have to go joel? (To polute the earth?)

I reccomend you put your money where you writing is. Stop being a hypocrite Joel, sell your Supra and stop abusing the earth and it's resources.

If you belive what you posted, then you can't ignore the "fact" that man is evil, and should be curtailed, so do your part and stop polluting the atmosphere and adding your evil chunk of carbon to the mix.

I on the other hand, don't believe in ANYTHING the envionmentalists elite say, because they clearly have an agenda that does not promote freedom, and is based on lousy science and scare tactics. (I'm not the only one saying this, just this post alone has many links you can spend hours reading.)
IF I belived there was a whit of truth to the idea that man is causing GW, I'd sell my cars, move to the city and ride public transportation tomarrow. (Lucky for all of us though, it's not man caused, and we can enjoy our hydrocarbon swilling vehicles out in the urban sprawl if we want to.)

Have a nice day Joel.

 

[Joel W.]

That is you being nice huh? See post 125.. I have already explained my situation. I am trying to change!
I am not saying we all have to stop driving, but there are more efficient ways to get from point A to point B and make cleaner power..

I have ignored no one here! I simply see it differently now..

 

[p5150]

Just because I think we consume too much doesnt make me a "liberal". Thats bullshit. Im sick of labels.

 

[Supracentral]

A free society stagnates when independent productive achievers begin to be socially demonized and punished for their accomplishments. It's happening as we speak, and it has been for quite some time.

Greenhouse gasses, CO2 emissions, Pollution, Global warming? None of that is the point, it's what these people want you paying attention to. It's scenery for the (dumb) masses to keep them from paying attention to the political agenda of the proponents of this crap.

Consider former Vice President Al Gore's environmental preaching. Al Gore and other environmental extremists are against "urban sprawl." They'd like most of the population (everyone except themselves and their liberal cronies) to live in efficient urban buildings, so there can be lots of open space and greenbelts around the cities. A lot of you guys have probably never even heard of Gore's history prior to his position as VP. Back in the 1990's Al Gore, was widely recognized as the most political EPA administrator ever. He used the EPA as a tool to achieve his political goals just as he's using the environmental movement to do it today.

Independence and individual achievement enable a free society to survive and thrive. When independence and personal happiness flourish and achievement is rewarded, freedom reigns. It's very difficult to control free people. These people know this. It's hard to take freedom away. You have to get people to give it up willingly.

Coerced self-sacrifice causes any society to self-destruct. Look at any society where this has been allowed to happen, it always ends in the same result. Poverty, misery and death.

The people who spout this propaganda are clearly anti-independnce, anti-individual, anti-freedom and in the end, anti-life. They are the true disciples of death. Go read the writings of the proponents of this garbage.

Look at the (obvious) final goals of these people. Individual ownership of private property has been directly attacked in recent history. And the attacks continue on a daily basis. You have to ask yourself why.

Fascism, socialism and environmentalism all share common goals -- State intervention in societal affairs as a systematic way to erode freedom and to punish individual achievement. It's a about CONTROL people. More specifically politicians ability to CONTROL you.

The car is a pivotal part of freedom in today's modern society. You need to eliminate it as a way to suppress freedom. You can't CONTROL people with that much freedom on thier hands. The people who spout this garbage believe the biggest obstacle to reducing freedom is private ownership of the automobile. That's a lot of freedom to remove. How do you get people to give that up? You scare the fuck out of them and get them to give them up, that's how...

Gore and his ilk preach a self fulfilling prophecy of schizoid nihilism. They wish to pour praise on "those men and women deemed courageous for being strong enough to stand the path of destruction that is headed for the earth". They'll tell you of "the global civil war" with those they claim to be in "denial about being addicted to consumption". It's bullshit folks, wake up and smell it.

I'm really baffled that we are here, on Supramania, and some of you are visciously supporting the people who want to take your right to own your Supra away from you? That's the final goal of all this. That's where it's going.

You think I'm kidding? It's coming folks. And your time is running out.

 

[Adjuster]

The basis of your belief that we consume too much is based on what parameters?

Is the product widely found and easy to come by?

Or is it in short supply, and quickly running out world wide?

Supply and demand forces will resolve your desire to use the product in a hurry. (It will price it out of where you want it anymore, or someone will find better ways to provide it at a better price and sell more of it.)

The real problem with oil prices right now is not supply, or demand, but the idea that it's going to run out anytime soon.

Oil companies know there is almost a limitless supply of oil world wide. They are savvy to the ideas of guys like Gold and others, and they know that estimates in the past of how much oil was in one location or the other have proven time and time again to be wrong. (Because the basic theory of fossil fuels making up the oil was wrong.)
The only way they can keep the prices up is to support the idea that fuel is a supply that will soon run out, and that world demand is going to suck up every last drop of oil tomarrow, so you'd better get yours now while there is some still left to get...
This fear mongering has worked very well. They also have worked with environmentalist groups to covertly help the fight against building new refineries and drilling for new sources of oil and gas. They talk about finding alternative fuels, and power supplies. They love that the whole GW debate throws reducing carbon output into the mix. It drives up the price of oil, and makes them rich.

The media loves a good hype story, so they are ripe to run every press release the environmentalists produce, especially when the price of gas is going nuts.

Let's talk about that too.
We have allowed ourselves to become very dependant on oil from other areas of the world. The Middle East is offender #1.
For years we enjoyed low oil prices as they undercut the production costs and drove local suppliers out of the game. (And the big companies went along with this because they were making money on the deal too.) The leagal environment here was tied up in law suits and other games to stop drilling and production in the USA and other Western countries, and we just sat back and enjoyed cheap oil while our own oil producing ability was cut short by prices and lawsuits.

Now the Middle East errupts again, and the prices soar, and everyone yells and moans that we use too much oil compared to other countries....

I say they have not figured out how to use as much as we do, but they are working on it very fast, and we had better work on developing our energy supplies now while we have the time needed to do it.

We need to reduce our need of Middle East oil to the point where they have to play nice to sell it to us. If that takes government involvement and new laws, so be it.

We know the oil exists. We just need to get to it, and produce it.

Demand is not going to go away. No matter how much people talk about reducing our need for hydrocarbons, they are very nice to have around, and we use them in so many ways, our lives would be completely different without them. (Try living without plastic for example.)

 

[Nick M]

Brock Yates wrote a good book on car ownership and how having freedom from public transportation delivers you from poverty. And liberals will have nothing to do if people are making it on their own.

Now you say that CO2 is excessive, but that the sun is still the cause and not man, even though the sun cycle is in a down swing and the temp is still rising along with the CO2 levels (which is higher than ever recorded on the planet)

No. I have no idea if levels are excessive. I do know that we are responsible for 4% of something that is not even 1% of our atmosphere. I do not doubt for one second the claims of how mant tons of CO2 we produce. I do question how much that effects the climate. And heat from the sun would increase natures CO2 output, that is not disputable.

 

[Nick M]

I still like you Joel. :icon_razz

So do I.

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

If so much CO2 is the problem let's just plant more trees and we can all hold hands and dance in the forrest.
If I was to blame CO2 rise on anything it would be the destruction of all the plants that use it to survive. Less plants consuming less CO2 = more CO2.

 

[p5150]

The basis of your belief that we consume too much is based on what parameters?

Ive traveled around the world. Compared to other countries, we are wasteful. People drive things that are WAY more efficient and still get to their destination. Why does a new light duty pickup (Ford Ranger) get only 20mpg on a good day? The VW and Toyota diesel pickups of the early 80's got nearly 50 mpg. MANY MORE vehicles in Asia and Europe are diesel - a much more efficient engine by design.

Maybe you need to see Who killed the electric car?