way OT: global warning alarms overstated

I think that the gov't doesn't know how to tell people we are quickly
using up our cheap energy sources. Therefore, global warming is the best way
to get consumers to power down without; panicking, riots, hoarding, war,
etc. Think of how you or anyone else would re-act if you were told there is
not enough oil or natural gas to go around, and it will continue to get
worse.
But, if you are convinced by TPTB and the media that you are doing a good
thing, or helping out the environment, it doesn't seem as bad, does it?
Sure, people will grumble about how we have to do with less of everything,
and the costs seem too much. As long as folks think that there is hope for
things to get better, they will behave.
Either way, we will be using less energy. If you were the gov't, how would
you tell the people, without causing civil unrest?

"Tunderbar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here are three interesting documentaries that look at the devilish
details of climatology and global warming alarms raised by the IPCC
which is a highly political committee of the UN.

Green House Conspiracy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

The Great Global Warning Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

Well, that doesn't make sense because the current administration has been
denying global warming until just recently. It is independent scientists
that are saying it is happening.

As for what I would do if I were in charge, I would always tell the truth
about everything. People need to grow up and deal with it. We have been
told for a long time that we will run out of oil, nobody seems to pay much
attention. If you want to do something useful but easy replace your
incandescent bulbs with fluorescents.

I would have long ago put the screws to the car companies to make more
efficient vehicles and promote them. They whine about big cars being what
people want but a lot of why they want them is all the fancy advertising the
companies do promoting them.

Tom G. wrote:
| I think that the gov't doesn't know how to tell people we are
| quickly using up our cheap energy sources. Therefore, global warming
| is the best way to get consumers to power down without; panicking,
| riots, hoarding, war, etc. Think of how you or anyone else would
| re-act if you were told there is not enough oil or natural gas to go
| around, and it will continue to get worse.
| But, if you are convinced by TPTB and the media that you are doing
| a good thing, or helping out the environment, it doesn't seem as bad,
| does it? Sure, people will grumble about how we have to do with less
| of everything, and the costs seem too much. As long as folks think
| that there is hope for things to get better, they will behave.
| Either way, we will be using less energy. If you were the gov't,
| how would you tell the people, without causing civil unrest?
|
|

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, that doesn't make sense because the current administration has been
denying global warming until just recently. It is independent scientists
that are saying it is happening.

I think they didn't want to agree with global warming (Kyoto), because
the economy would suffer too much. They probably figured ethanol,
bio-diesel, wind power, and solar would replace oil. There are more studies
now that show that the energy return over energy invested is very poor
compared to oil. Enter plan B, global warming, to power down instead of look
for replacements.

Quoted message said:

As for what I would do if I were in charge, I would always tell the truth
about everything. People need to grow up and deal with it. We have been
told for a long time that we will run out of oil, nobody seems to pay much
attention. If you want to do something useful but easy replace your
incandescent bulbs with fluorescents.

It sounds like they are going to make incandescents unavailable to buy
anyway in a couple of years. Yes, there is a lot we can do, to use less
energy before our way of life starts to be seriously affected. Most of the
energy savings or recycling programs are actually small steps compared to
where we should be going. I imagine that energy will get more expensive, and
we'll find ways of using less, or doing without.
Jimmy Carter tried to get our attention just after the US had its own
peak. Maybe if we would have taken the steps to be more sustainable then, we
would have been in a better situation now to deal with world peaking.

Quoted message said:

I would have long ago put the screws to the car companies to make more
efficient vehicles and promote them. They whine about big cars being what
people want but a lot of why they want them is all the fancy advertising
the
companies do promoting them.

They started to try and make more efficient cars during the last oil
crisis. But when more oil was available through imports, the price came
down, and it's back to big vehicles again. It seems that we won't do
anything until it's forced on us.

Quoted message said:

Tom G. wrote:
| I think that the gov't doesn't know how to tell people we are
| quickly using up our cheap energy sources. Therefore, global warming
| is the best way to get consumers to power down without; panicking,
| riots, hoarding, war, etc. Think of how you or anyone else would
| re-act if you were told there is not enough oil or natural gas to go
| around, and it will continue to get worse.
| But, if you are convinced by TPTB and the media that you are doing
| a good thing, or helping out the environment, it doesn't seem as bad,
| does it? Sure, people will grumble about how we have to do with less
| of everything, and the costs seem too much. As long as folks think
| that there is hope for things to get better, they will behave.
| Either way, we will be using less energy. If you were the gov't,
| how would you tell the people, without causing civil unrest?
|
|

Tom G. said:

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, that doesn't make sense because the current administration has been
denying global warming until just recently. It is independent scientists
that are saying it is happening.

People that come up with these grand conspiracy theories always amaze
me. Exactly how long do you think you could keep a world wide secret
conspiracy among hundreds of governments and environmental groups to
use global warming as a phoney cover story to force people to move
from dwindling fossil fuels? Ever watch TV? The media is exposing
secrets right and left, yet we're supposed to believe that this
massive conspiracy exists, with no one spilling the beans? Oh, and
BTW, we're not running out of carbon energy sources either. There is
plenty of coal available, so if the real motive were to use a widely
available and huge resource, why use CO2 as a phoney story, when that
argues against coal?

It's quite obvious that those that are convinced of global warming
really believe it. Just as scientists were convinced in the 70's
that we were entering an ice age. Or that the public believed in
2000 we had entered a new age of investing, when stocks traded at PE's
of 1000 and everyone was going to get rich. Doesn't mean they are
right about global warming, but it's quite obvious those promoting it
really believe it.

Quoted message said:

I think they didn't want to agree with global warming (Kyoto), because
the economy would suffer too much. They probably figured ethanol,
bio-diesel, wind power, and solar would replace oil. There are more studies
now that show that the energy return over energy invested is very poor
compared to oil. Enter plan B, global warming, to power down instead of look
for replacements.

Quoted message said:

As for what I would do if I were in charge, I would always tell the truth
about everything. People need to grow up and deal with it. We have been
told for a long time that we will run out of oil, nobody seems to pay much
attention. If you want to do something useful but easy replace your
incandescent bulbs with fluorescents.

It sounds like they are going to make incandescents unavailable to buy
anyway in a couple of years. Yes, there is a lot we can do, to use less
energy before our way of life starts to be seriously affected. Most of the
energy savings or recycling programs are actually small steps compared to
where we should be going. I imagine that energy will get more expensive, and
we'll find ways of using less, or doing without.
Jimmy Carter tried to get our attention just after the US had its own
peak. Maybe if we would have taken the steps to be more sustainable then, we
would have been in a better situation now to deal with world peaking.

Quoted message said:

I would have long ago put the screws to the car companies to make more
efficient vehicles and promote them. They whine about big cars being what
people want but a lot of why they want them is all the fancy advertising
the
companies do promoting them.

They started to try and make more efficient cars during the last oil
crisis. But when more oil was available through imports, the price came
down, and it's back to big vehicles again. It seems that we won't do
anything until it's forced on us.

Quoted message said:

Tom G. wrote:
| I think that the gov't doesn't know how to tell people we are
| quickly using up our cheap energy sources. Therefore, global warming
| is the best way to get consumers to power down without; panicking,
| riots, hoarding, war, etc. Think of how you or anyone else would
| re-act if you were told there is not enough oil or natural gas to go
| around, and it will continue to get worse.
| But, if you are convinced by TPTB and the media that you are doing
| a good thing, or helping out the environment, it doesn't seem as bad,
| does it? Sure, people will grumble about how we have to do with less
| of everything, and the costs seem too much. As long as folks think
| that there is hope for things to get better, they will behave.
| Either way, we will be using less energy. If you were the gov't,
| how would you tell the people, without causing civil unrest?
|
|- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Quoted post said:

It's quite obvious that those that are convinced of global warming
really believe it. Just as scientists were convinced in the 70's
that we were entering an ice age. Or that the public believed in
2000 we had entered a new age of investing, when stocks traded at PE's
of 1000 and everyone was going to get rich. Doesn't mean they are
right about global warming, but it's quite obvious those promoting it
really believe it.

In most cases I'd agree, but I do think some of the people promoting
it know how shaky it is. They don't want to admit they were wrong
(who does?) and many times their jobs depend on continuing the farce.
As a previous poster suggested, there's a bit of "end justifying the
means" going on here. Unfortunately, the environmental movement today
has been completely overrun by people whose only goal is to slow US
productivity and consumption. If the global warming hoax looks like
it will accomplish that, they'll believe it and fight for it without
ever caring whether it's true.

The UN-funded scientist who created the famous hockey-stick climate
chart based on tree-ring data *knew* it was a joke. He massaged the
formulas until they did what he wanted, picked data sets that gave the
preferred results and discarded others, and then refused to allow peer
review of much of his work. Now, you could say maybe he still does
*believe* in global warming as an article of faith, and just thinks
our testing methods aren't good enough yet, so he had to help them
along. Who knows what he believes, but he knows he *invented* that
chart, which is now printed as fact everywhere from newspapers to
schoolbooks -- despite the fact that it contradicts every other
climate study.

The pro-grain, anti-fat hoax is much the same. Yeah, most of the
people preaching the evils of fat probably really do believe it. But
they have to close their eyes and ears to a lot of inconvenient facts
these days to maintain that belief. No one willing to look
objectively at the evidence available today would come up with
anything like the Food Pyramid. Does that mean there's a conspiracy?
No, just a lot of people with a strong faith in certain beliefs.
(It's quite possible that someone like the CEO of Nabisco knows the
truth and is keeping his mouth shut to protect his livelihood, but
that's not really a conspiracy.)

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

People that come up with these grand conspiracy theories always amaze
me. Exactly how long do you think you could keep a world wide secret
conspiracy among hundreds of governments and environmental groups to
use global warming as a phoney cover story to force people to move
from dwindling fossil fuels? Ever watch TV? The media is exposing
secrets right and left, yet we're supposed to believe that this
massive conspiracy exists, with no one spilling the beans?

The conspiracy is that we are not being told about the seriousness of peak
oil. Oil (and coal, natural gas) has given us an unusual great wealth, which
has allowed our population to grow far beyond normal limits. We're close to
having used up half of this, and it was the easiest to get to stuff.
The second half is in smaller pockets, deep under the ocean, in the high
arctic, and mixed with tons of dirt and rock (oil sands). This is going to
take more energy to extract. The large fields needed maybe 1 barrel of oil
equivalent energy to get out 50 barrels. The oil sands require 1 or 2
barrels to get 3. At some point, the hard to get to stuff, will cost more
energy input than you get out of the ground. The rest of the oil will stay
buried. As we switch more to coal, that 200 year supply at current rates
will be more like 30 years at increasing rates.
We don't have to get to the point of running out to have big trouble. All
that is needed is not being able to meet current production levels. Some say
we have 1 trillion barrels left, others say 2. That's 30 to 60 years supply
at current rates of 30 billion annually. the last half will not come out as
easily as the first, so production levels will continually drop. We may not
run out for a long time. Tar sands will likely take 1 or 2 hundred years, if
it's still worth it to get it out, but at a slower than needed rate.
Somebody will have to do without. The economy will shrink and our lives
will be affected directly, or indirectly. Social programs and infrastructure
will decline. More poor people unable to get adequate medical care. Food
farming and transportation will cause temporary shortages at first, until
the changed economics gets worked out. Jobs will open up in agriculture as
manual labour.
There is a fair amount of room for efficiency upgrades and doing with
less before our lives are more seriously affected. Resource wars and
hoarding could change that quickly. We are quite inventive in some ways, but
rely more on animal instinct in others. Technology is one thing. The energy
to run that technology is another.
There are a few oil geologists and scientists that are sounding the
alarm, but they are viewed as quacks by the cornucopian majority. Most
people in business and gov't don't believe it will happen in their life
time, if at all. So it's easier to let the next generation worry about how
this will be solved.
Fusion is not working out the way we need it to. Ethanol and bio-diesel
are barely energy positive, let alone the problems it will cause with food
shortages and increased rate of top soil depletion. Solar and wind are
viable sources, but are unreliable and not enough for what we use. Is there
enough energy left over from these sources to build another windmill and
solar panel when these wear out and break down? Sort of like; "There is
enough family income to support present needs, but is there enough for
retirement or for kid's college?" The next energy source will require a
surplus for rebuilding, not just a break even proposition for current
infrastructure.
So, with all these problems, how do you tell the masses? Global warming
issues will result in the same needed changes as peak oil. A power down
society. Who cares what the people believe as long as the goal is
accomplished? I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. How do you tell the people
without causing systemic panic and sense of hopelessness? One of the jobs of
gov't is to bring stability and order so people can go about their business
and adapt without radical changes that cause inefficiency and disorder.
Sugar coating the truth may be necessary at times to calm people down.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and
BTW, we're not running out of carbon energy sources either. There is
plenty of coal available,

At present consumption rates there is. Not if it's going to replace an
existing energy source. When you increase rates of use, the number of years
of supply go down. It didn't seem that long ago they were saying we had a
1000 year supply of coal. Now it's 200. When I was a kid, they said there
was enough oil to last hundreds of years. But that was at consumption rates
at the time.

so if the real motive were to use a widely

Quoted message said:

available and huge resource, why use CO2 as a phoney story, when that
argues against coal?

They claim they're going to scrub the CO2 out of the exaust and inject it
in the ground. Likely that will help get more oil out of the ground instead
of using water like now.

Quoted message said:

It's quite obvious that those that are convinced of global warming
really believe it.

People will believe whatever the media coverage is at the time. No body
cares about whales anymore, because it's not in the news.

Just as scientists were convinced in the 70's

Quoted message said:

that we were entering an ice age.

Yes, I remember that. The air pollution was suppose to restrict the sun's
rays and cooling would result. There was lots of graphs and such back then
too.

Quoted message said:

Or that the public believed in
2000 we had entered a new age of investing, when stocks traded at PE's
of 1000 and everyone was going to get rich. Doesn't mean they are
right about global warming, but it's quite obvious those promoting it
really believe it.

Yes.

I don't really know what to believe concerning global warming. All the
pieces don't quite fit together for me to make sense of it either way.
Pumping pollutants in the air though, seems like pissing in the water well
to me. So I tend to think it's not a good thing. CO2 gets all the news, but
not as many people are aware that water vapour is also a green house gas.
With the amount of energy needed to extract oil from tar sands and other
sources, the amount of CO2 will likely go up as we use more to get what's
left.
We overdo everything we stick our fingers into. So far we have managed to
dodge the bullet because of being inovative. We fish until they are scarce.
We're depleting top soil at an alarming rate, and bio-fuels will accelerate
that. All the easy to get to metals ores are being consumed, and the rest is
deeper down. We've always managed to find alternatives. This, I believe will
be our down fall when we run out of alternatives and we will be humbled.
In my opinion, oil has caused our population to go into overshoot
conditions. Our numbers will be reduced by choice or by nature, when oil
runs out. This will take decades to play out, unless something like war
helps it along. We're not leaving much for those that come after us. If a
new energy source like fusion doesn't come along, there may never be another
chance to build and maintain what we have now.
Maybe when people are powered down for a few years, gov't may start
letting on that the oil is running out. But they'll probably say it's not a
big deal because we are familiar with doing with less, and we've been
powering down for years, so don't panic. This may not be fully admited until
well past peak oil. There are many excuses that can be told about why
production is down. Like; "Our efforts in reducing green house gasses are a
success. We are on target for using less according to plan." Meanwhile,
everyone will wonder why there's never enough to go around for them. Gas
rations will be less and less. But those that can afford it will have
enough. CO2 credits can be purchased from those that can no longer afford to
drive. Fuel will be increasingly reserved to ensure food gets to the stores
and for farming. Frivolous consumption will go down.

Tom G. said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

People that come up with these grand conspiracy theories always amaze
me. Exactly how long do you think you could keep a world wide secret
conspiracy among hundreds of governments and environmental groups to
use global warming as a phoney cover story to force people to move
from dwindling fossil fuels? Ever watch TV? The media is exposing
secrets right and left, yet we're supposed to believe that this
massive conspiracy exists, with no one spilling the beans?

The conspiracy is that we are not being told about the seriousness of peak
oil. Oil (and coal, natural gas) has given us an unusual great wealth, which
has allowed our population to grow far beyond normal limits. We're close to
having used up half of this, and it was the easiest to get to stuff.

No, what you stated was that global warming was being used to drive
energy demand to alternative fuels, instead of telling people that we
need alternative fuels because we are running out. And that requires
that there be a big world wide conspiracy. And how exactly do you
keep this big global conspiracy together? Like no one is gonna go
spill it to the news media? No one has a copy of a document to mail
anonymously to journalists that says global warming is just a phoney
cover story driven by a conspiracy? Last week you had ABC spewing
covert plans from the CIA to try to topple the regime in Iran. While
the media loves to harp about global warming, nothing would make them
happier than a good global conspiracy story. You have absolutely
zippo evidence to support your theory that global warming is a cover
story. And to suggest this is necessary because otherwise you;d have
riots, hoarding, and war, is laughable. Like if there was a story on
the news tonight suggesting that we might run out of oil in 50 years,
people are gonna go raid the local gas station? LOL

This makes as much sense as Rosie O'Donnel spewing her unsupported
conspiracy nonsense on ABC claiming that the buildings on 9-11 were
brought down by a covert operation using explosives with zero evidence
to support it.

Quoted message said:

The second half is in smaller pockets, deep under the ocean, in the high
arctic, and mixed with tons of dirt and rock (oil sands). This is going to
take more energy to extract. The large fields needed maybe 1 barrel of oil
equivalent energy to get out 50 barrels. The oil sands require 1 or 2
barrels to get 3. At some point, the hard to get to stuff, will cost more
energy input than you get out of the ground. The rest of the oil will stay
buried. As we switch more to coal, that 200 year supply at current rates
will be more like 30 years at increasing rates.

Quoted message said:

We don't have to get to the point of running out to have big trouble. All
that is needed is not being able to meet current production levels. Some say
we have 1 trillion barrels left, others say 2. That's 30 to 60 years supply
at current rates of 30 billion annually.

the last half will not come out as

Quoted message said:

easily as the first, so production levels will continually drop. We may not
run out for a long time. Tar sands will likely take 1 or 2 hundred years, if
it's still worth it to get it out, but at a slower than needed rate.
Somebody will have to do without. The economy will shrink and our lives
will be affected directly, or indirectly. Social programs and infrastructure
will decline. More poor people unable to get adequate medical care. Food
farming and transportation will cause temporary shortages at first, until
the changed economics gets worked out. Jobs will open up in agriculture as
manual labour.
There is a fair amount of room for efficiency upgrades and doing with
less before our lives are more seriously affected. Resource wars and
hoarding could change that quickly. We are quite inventive in some ways, but
rely more on animal instinct in others. Technology is one thing. The energy
to run that technology is another.
There are a few oil geologists and scientists that are sounding the
alarm, but they are viewed as quacks by the cornucopian majority. Most
people in business and gov't don't believe it will happen in their life
time, if at all. So it's easier to let the next generation worry about how
this will be solved.
Fusion is not working out the way we need it to. Ethanol and bio-diesel
are barely energy positive, let alone the problems it will cause with food
shortages and increased rate of top soil depletion. Solar and wind are
viable sources, but are unreliable and not enough for what we use. Is there
enough energy left over from these sources to build another windmill and
solar panel when these wear out and break down? Sort of like; "There is
enough family income to support present needs, but is there enough for
retirement or for kid's college?" The next energy source will require a
surplus for rebuilding, not just a break even proposition for current
infrastructure.
So, with all these problems, how do you tell the masses? Global warming
issues will result in the same needed changes as peak oil. A power down
society. Who cares what the people believe as long as the goal is
accomplished?

Well, at least some of us still prefer the truth and can seperate fact
from fiction.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. How do you tell the people

Quoted message said:

without causing systemic panic and sense of hopelessness?

I would call a global plan to use global warming as a cover to get
people to use less energy as a huge conspiracy, because that's
exactly what it would be.
And, please. It's better to tell people we may already have changed
the climate so much with global warming that we all may die from
floods and starvation, instead of telling them that we may run out of
some fossil fuels in 50-100 years? BTW, there is plenty of coal for
long beyond that.

One of the jobs of

Quoted message said:

gov't is to bring stability and order so people can go about their business
and adapt without radical changes that cause inefficiency and disorder.
Sugar coating the truth may be necessary at times to calm people down.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and
BTW, we're not running out of carbon energy sources either. There is
plenty of coal available,

At present consumption rates there is. Not if it's going to replace an
existing energy source. When you increase rates of use, the number of years
of supply go down. It didn't seem that long ago they were saying we had a
1000 year supply of coal. Now it's 200. When I was a kid, they said there
was enough oil to last hundreds of years. But that was at consumption rates
at the time.

so if the real motive were to use a widely

Quoted message said:

available and huge resource, why use CO2 as a phoney story, when that
argues against coal?

They claim they're going to scrub the CO2 out of the exaust and inject it
in the ground. Likely that will help get more oil out of the ground instead
of using water like now.

Another wild speculation in a desperate attempt to change facts to
support a wild conspiracy theory, full of big and obvious holes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's quite obvious that those that are convinced of global warming
really believe it.

People will believe whatever the media coverage is at the time. No body
cares about whales anymore, because it's not in the news.

Just as scientists were convinced in the 70's

Quoted message said:

that we were entering an ice age.

Yes, I remember that. The air pollution was suppose to restrict the sun's
rays and cooling would result. There was lots of graphs and such back then
too.

Quoted message said:

Or that the public believed in
2000 we had entered a new age of investing, when stocks traded at PE's
of 1000 and everyone was going to get rich. Doesn't mean they are
right about global warming, but it's quite obvious those promoting it
really believe it.

Yes.

I don't really know what to believe concerning global warming. All the
pieces don't quite fit together for me to make sense of it either way.
Pumping pollutants in the air though, seems like pissing in the water well
to me. So I tend to think it's not a good thing. CO2 gets all the news, but
not as many people are aware that water vapour is also a green house gas.
With the amount of energy needed to extract oil from tar sands and other
sources, the amount of CO2 will likely go up as we use more to get what's
left.
We overdo everything we stick our fingers into. So far we have managed to
dodge the bullet because of being inovative. We fish until they are scarce.
We're depleting top soil at an alarming rate, and bio-fuels will accelerate
that. All the easy to get to metals ores are being consumed, and the rest is
deeper down. We've always managed to find alternatives. This, I believe will
be our down fall when we run out of alternatives and we will be humbled.
In my opinion, oil has caused our population to go into overshoot
conditions. Our numbers will be reduced by choice or by nature, when oil
runs out. This will take decades to play out, unless something like war
helps it along. We're not leaving much for those that come after us. If a
new energy source like fusion doesn't come along, there may never be another
chance to build and maintain what we have now.
Maybe when people are powered down for a few years, gov't may start
letting on that the oil is running out. But they'll probably say it's not a
big deal because we are familiar with doing with less, and we've been
powering down for years, so don't panic. This may not be fully admited until
well past peak oil. There are many excuses that can be told about why
production is down. Like; "Our efforts in reducing green house gasses are a
success. We are on target for using less according to plan." Meanwhile,
everyone will wonder why there's never enough to go around for them. Gas
rations will be less and less. But those that can afford it will have
enough. CO2 credits can be purchased from those that can no longer afford to
drive. Fuel will be increasingly reserved to ensure food gets to the stores
and for farming. Frivolous consumption will go down.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom G. said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

No, what you stated was that global warming was being used to drive
energy demand to alternative fuels, instead of telling people that we
need alternative fuels because we are running out.

Not really what I said. They thought that alternative fuels would be the
answer. That's why they never wanted to sign on to a Kyoto style commitment.
Alternative fuels would still create as much CO2 and would not be able to
stay within emmisions targets. Now that there is more evidence that
alternative fuels are not going to be able to replace oil on the grand
scale, global warming fits well into the new goals of powering down. The
gov't may never sign a Kyoto agreement, but will probably agree to the
general theory of it because powering down because of peak oil and reduction
of green house gasses for global warming issues essentially does the same
thing.

Quoted message said:

You have absolutely
zippo evidence to support your theory that global warming is a cover
story. And to suggest this is necessary because otherwise you;d have
riots, hoarding, and war, is laughable. Like if there was a story on
the news tonight suggesting that we might run out of oil in 50 years,
people are gonna go raid the local gas station? LOL

My locking gas cap was pried off during the last oil crisis. People are
only nice if there is enough to go around. Again, you don't have to get to
the point where there is none left in 50 years. It starts when supply can't
keep up with demand. Well before all the oil is gone.

Quoted message said:

I would call a global plan to use global warming as a cover to get
people to use less energy as a huge conspiracy, because that's
exactly what it would be.
And, please. It's better to tell people we may already have changed
the climate so much with global warming that we all may die from
floods and starvation, instead of telling them that we may run out of
some fossil fuels in 50-100 years? BTW, there is plenty of coal for
long beyond that.

In the sense that if people believe the problems can be fixed if we act.
Then yes, global warming is a good enough excuse to power down. Peak oil
however sounds a lot more serious and unsolvable, and it is. Civil unrest is
the last thing the gov't would want when they have to power down.
For what ever reason global warming is in the news, the facts one way or
the other doesn't seem to prove it. I opinions on it can be swayed either
way. Given our history, it is likely we are causing damage to the air. If we
are in a 100,000 year warming cycle, there is not much we can do to
counteract that. But we may be helping to accelerate the natural warming
rate. It's hard to believe we have no affect at all.
Besides, I think concentrating on global warming is more or less trying to
deal with a symptom of our actions, rather than being more alarmed with the
possible decline of our civilization because of not enough energy.
Call me crazy if you like. I believe our society is in trouble because of
what we are doing (or rather not doing). We're in for a serious slap upside
the head. Times will not be as happy down the slope, as it was going up. We
will see changes in our life time, whether it is blamed on global warming,
peak oil, or the war on terror. We want the power down to be as gentle as
possible. We don't want to be going full steam ahead until we hit the wall.
I know. Maybe a bird flu could achieve all of our goals. No war. No one
to blame. Population reduction. Lots of fuel and agricultural land to go
around for whoever is left. No destruction of infrastructure. Now that would
be a good conspiracy. :o) Just kidding.
We always seem to be on opposite sides of an issue on many topics. No
matter. I do hope that people google for peak oil and realize the
seriousness of the problem. I would actually like it if I was wrong. That
would mean everything will be ok. Not so much for me, but for my kid.

"Tom G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%U27i.235830

Quoted message said:

For what ever reason global warming is in the news, the facts one way or
the other doesn't seem to prove it. I opinions on it can be swayed either
way. Given our history, it is likely we are causing damage to the air. If
we are in a 100,000 year warming cycle, there is not much we can do to
counteract that. But we may be helping to accelerate the natural warming
rate. It's hard to believe we have no affect at all.

Well, global warming is a fact. It's existance is not really in dispute,
given the effects we're seeing - such as disappearance of so much ice
worldwide, sea levels beginning to rise. I correct myself - it's in serious
dispute *only* in media and some political circles. It's here, folks.

The only real questions in play are why, and what will be the outcome. It's
pretty much indisputable that since the industrial revolution we've added a
lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We've always known
that would tend to heat up the atmosphere, as would losing albedo
(reflectivity) from loss of ice cover. The fact that there are (currently
unpredictable) warming trends from other causes is interesting, but may be
blown out of proportion as a kind of mega-red herring.

Definitely our greenhouse gases are contributing - almost certainly
significantly - to any natural climate cycles. Yes, I could find scientists
to dispute this, or the degree of significance of greenhouse gas
contribution. Why? Because whatever harebrained contrarian theory is out
there, you can always find scientists to support it. That's a fact. Some
will be defending their previous conclusions, some just to be contrary, some
because there is something (usually money/research grants) in it for them.

Quoted message said:

Besides, I think concentrating on global warming is more or less trying to
deal with a symptom of our actions, rather than being more alarmed with
the possible decline of our civilization because of not enough energy.
Call me crazy if you like. I believe our society is in trouble because
of what we are doing (or rather not doing).

Well, I'll agree here, but I'm not sure energy is yet that critical nor that
difficult to deal with. However... with the sharp increase in fossil fuel
use in places like China, there will be competition. We're already seeing
hostile political actions (and, it's my belief - wars) resulting from such
competition. This stuff could mostly be avoided if our "leaders" would lose
their fixation on fossil fuels and back to energy independence and renewable
energy sources. Not that hard, once the political will is there. The course
we're on, however, is insane.

If you think this is something new, by the way, I'd invite you to do some
reading re the history of energy use by western civilization. There's a lot
of good writing out there. Edwin Black's "Internal Combustion" does a good
job of showing how our tendency to base societal welfare decisions on vested
interests is hardly novel.

And of course there is the background problem... overpopulation, mostly in
3d-world countries, some of which are now starting to industralize.

But IMO the big question is what will be the outcome of rising temperatures,
increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases. It's all guesswork, albeit some
more educated than others. As ocean temperatures continue to rise, will
massive release of condensate gases from ocean bottoms trigger runaway
heating of the atmosphere? To what extent (if any) will increased albedo
from increased cloud cover offset all this? It definitely IS true that the
eventual outcome could pretty well end civilization and wipe out much of the
population.

Quoted message said:

We're in for a serious slap upside the head. Times will not be as happy
down the slope, as it was going up. We will see changes in our life time,
whether it is blamed on global warming, peak oil, or the war on terror.

Well, to some extent it's all related. If climate changes as much as most
scientists predict, we're in for some really tough times, geopolitically and
otherwise. Whether we're competing for oil, fresh water, food... it's not
gonna be good.

HG

On May 30, 6:40 am, "Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tom G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%U27i.235830

Quoted message said:

For what ever reason global warming is in the news, the facts one way or
the other doesn't seem to prove it. I opinions on it can be swayed either
way. Given our history, it is likely we are causing damage to the air. If
we are in a 100,000 year warming cycle, there is not much we can do to
counteract that. But we may be helping to accelerate the natural warming
rate. It's hard to believe we have no affect at all.

Well, global warming is a fact. It's existance is not really in dispute,
given the effects we're seeing - such as disappearance of so much ice
worldwide, sea levels beginning to rise. I correct myself - it's in serious
dispute *only* in media and some political circles. It's here, folks.

The only real questions in play are why, and what will be the outcome. It's
pretty much indisputable that since the industrial revolution we've added a
lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We've always known
that would tend to heat up the atmosphere, as would losing albedo
(reflectivity) from loss of ice cover. The fact that there are (currently
unpredictable) warming trends from other causes is interesting, but may be
blown out of proportion as a kind of mega-red herring.

Definitely our greenhouse gases are contributing - almost certainly
significantly - to any natural climate cycles. Yes, I could find scientists
to dispute this, or the degree of significance of greenhouse gas
contribution. Why? Because whatever harebrained contrarian theory is out
there, you can always find scientists to support it. That's a fact. Some
will be defending their previous conclusions, some just to be contrary, some
because there is something (usually money/research grants) in it for them.

See, this is the typical attitude regarding global warming. Anyone
that dares raise a question is dismissed as a hairbrained idiot.
Did you bother to even watch the excellent video Tunder provided at
the start of this thread? It has 3 scientists from MIT as well as the
university of London, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who all do
not believe global warming is caused by man.

They addressed every major point about global warming that concerned
me and that I have yet to hear any credible explanation for from those
that claim human CO2 is responsible for it. Let's take perhaps the
biggest glaring hole. The nice little graph that everyone uses goes
back 600,000 years and shows a line of CO2 cycles and temp cycles.
The cycles fit together quite nicely, so this is a very effective
show. What they never address is, if CO2 is causing the warming,
why does CO2 always start it's up cycle 600-1500 years BEFORE the temp
starts to increase? I heard this exact question asked of one of the
alleged expert professors on global warming. His answer? "That only
means CO2 isn;t responsible for the first 600 years of warming."

Huh? That should bother everyone with even a high school education,
but to the proponents of global warming, no rational explanation is
even required, because, We just KNOW for a fact it must be caused by
man, so this glaring inconsistency should just be ignored. That's
exactly what Al Gore did when he used the graph in his movie. On
the other hand, we have scientists who understand ocean science,
explaining that the big reservoir on Earth of CO2 is the oceans. And
as the Earth's temp rises, the ocean slowly warms, so they give up CO2
to the atmosphere, just like a warming bottle of soda. But the oceans
are so deep, it takes hundreds of years for the warming of the Earth
to cause the CO2 to increase, hence CO2 level follows temp. Hmmm,
now who's hairbrained?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, I think concentrating on global warming is more or less trying to
deal with a symptom of our actions, rather than being more alarmed with
the possible decline of our civilization because of not enough energy.
Call me crazy if you like. I believe our society is in trouble because
of what we are doing (or rather not doing).

Well, I'll agree here, but I'm not sure energy is yet that critical nor that
difficult to deal with. However... with the sharp increase in fossil fuel
use in places like China, there will be competition. We're already seeing
hostile political actions (and, it's my belief - wars) resulting from such
competition. This stuff could mostly be avoided if our "leaders" would lose
their fixation on fossil fuels and back to energy independence and renewable
energy sources. Not that hard, once the political will is there. The course
we're on, however, is insane.

If you think this is something new, by the way, I'd invite you to do some
reading re the history of energy use by western civilization. There's a lot
of good writing out there. Edwin Black's "Internal Combustion" does a good
job of showing how our tendency to base societal welfare decisions on vested
interests is hardly novel.

And of course there is the background problem... overpopulation, mostly in
3d-world countries, some of which are now starting to industralize.

But IMO the big question is what will be the outcome of rising temperatures,
increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases. It's all guesswork, albeit some
more educated than others. As ocean temperatures continue to rise, will
massive release of condensate gases from ocean bottoms trigger runaway
heating of the atmosphere? To what extent (if any) will increased albedo
from increased cloud cover offset all this? It definitely IS true that the
eventual outcome could pretty well end civilization and wipe out much of the
population.

Quoted message said:

We're in for a serious slap upside the head. Times will not be as happy
down the slope, as it was going up. We will see changes in our life time,
whether it is blamed on global warming, peak oil, or the war on terror.

Well, to some extent it's all related. If climate changes as much as most
scientists predict, we're in for some really tough times, geopolitically and
otherwise. Whether we're competing for oil, fresh water, food... it's not
gonna be good.

HG

Tom G. said:

The conspiracy is that we are not being told about the seriousness
of peak oil.

We're not? I'm reading about this all over the place.

Worst. Conspiracy. Ever.

Quoted message said:

Somebody will have to do without. The economy will shrink and our
lives will be affected directly, or indirectly. Social programs and
infrastructure will decline. More poor people unable to get adequate
medical care. Food farming and transportation will cause temporary
shortages at first, until the changed economics gets worked
out. Jobs will open up in agriculture as manual labour.

People have been predicting this kind of stuff for as long as there
have been people. I'm convinced that when the first caveman
discovered fire, another caveman started to kick sand on it because
he was afraid they'd run out of sticks.

Yes, we're going to run out of oil, but that's no reason to beat the
rush to living in caves again. Nuclear power can replace it, whenever
we decide to stop being ninnies about it. Fission if we have to, but
fusion is coming along, and would a lot faster if we got serious about
it, instead of throwing so much funding at unserious alternatives like
ethanol. No one's going to starve unless we make a political decision
that forces them to. There's so much more abundance than people
realize. (I blame it on living in cities.)

I'm a conservationist, by the way. Abundance doesn't mean you should
be wasteful. I think people drive *way* too much, and we should get
back to designing our towns as neighborhoods where people can walk to
things. Urban sprawl isn't bad because it uses land -- we've got land
a' plenty -- but it ruins communities. We also need to stop wasting
huge amounts of water irrigating deserts to grow vegetables. And so
on. There are many ways we can be better stewards, without going into
a panic or beating ourselves up for having a productive, busy society.

Quoted message said:

We overdo everything we stick our fingers into. So far we have
managed to dodge the bullet because of being inovative. We fish until
they are scarce. We're depleting top soil at an alarming rate, and
bio-fuels will accelerate that. All the easy to get to metals ores are
being consumed, and the rest is deeper down. We've always managed to
find alternatives. This, I believe will be our down fall when we run
out of alternatives and we will be humbled.

Think about what you said, though: "We've always managed to find
alternatives." Why is that suddenly going to change? People 10, 20,
50, 100, 200, 2000 years ago all thought the same thing: "Well, we've
gotten away with it so far, but *now* we're screwed." They couldn't
see the alternatives coming, and neither can we.

There seems to be a weird reverse sort of societal narcissism at play
here, as if our generation is so important that the sky is finally
going to fall on us. It's as if we'd prefer to be known as the
generation that went down in history as The Big Failure, rather than
just another group of people who muddled through, getting some things
right and some things wrong. Infamy over anonymity.

Quoted message said:

In my opinion, oil has caused our population to go into overshoot
conditions. Our numbers will be reduced by choice or by nature, when
oil runs out.

Ugh, surely not population worries! That's the oldest pointless worry
in the book. In the USA, we pay farmers not to grow food, so there
won't be too much of it. Where people are hungry, it's because of
political restrictions and stupidity. Birth rates in the West have
gotten so low that European countries (and the USA, to a lesser
extent) aren't going to be able to maintain their welfare systems
without a massive influx of young immigrant laborers. (Only problem
is, the ones they're getting in general aren't so much the kind to
settle down and become productive taxpayers.)

Quoted message said:

Maybe when people are powered down for a few years, gov't may start
letting on that the oil is running out. But they'll probably say
it's not a big deal because we are familiar with doing with less,
and we've been powering down for years, so don't panic.

No one's going to power down in the first place unless prices go up.
That's what's so silly about this -- people talk like one day we're
going to be paying $3/gallon for gas, and the next day the tanks will
be empty. As the easy supplies get low and oil companies put more
effort into harder sources like shale oil, the price will gradually go
up, and at some point, people will stop driving two hours to work,
buying five-bedroom houses for families of three, and running their
kids across the city to soccer games every night. Economic pressures
work.

Yeah, it'd be great if we could start conserving now, and I'm all for
public campaigns to encourage that, but that's just not how people
work, for the most part. Besides, even if we cut back, we're still
going to run out of oil, just further in the future. All the viable
alternatives need to be explored regardless, and we won't be able to
afford as much research if we hobble our economy.

Also, nonsense like Kyoto is oriented on forcing the US to cut back
(and transferring large amounts of cash from the US to other
countries, like the ones that wrote the treaty). Even if the US cut
back, that wouldn't stop China and other countries from increasing
their energy usage. After all, they all want to achieve our level of
prosperity, if not our freedoms and culture.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

See, this is the typical attitude regarding global warming. Anyone
that dares raise a question is dismissed as a hairbrained idiot.

Well, not quite. Actually, what we seem to be seeing is the rather messy
argumentation and posturing and politics within the academic community that
is typical of any changeover of a major paradigm. Twenty years ago the
harebrained ones, the ones who couldn't get a hearing, who were castigated
in the relatively rare even that they did... were the scientists worried
about buildup of greenhouse gases and the potential for global warming. They
were the crazies then. Now, as more and more evidence is gathered and
assimilated... and of course as sea levels creep up and polar ice caps
melt... the tables have gradually turned.

As it happens, I was trained and worked for many years as a geologist. I'm
aware (and have observed first hand among colleagues) that this is
absolutely typical of how big changes in scientific thinking occur. Well
into a transition there will always be many legitimate scientists who will
fight against the trend, for reasons already given. Mostly because
scientists tend to get very emotionally and intellectually invested in their
own models/paradigms. This is actually a good thing, because the old gaurd's
arguments will require continued scrutiny and refining of the new paradigm.
One big difference in the case of global warming, however, is that it is...
and was when the consensus was opposite... intensely politicized.

Quoted message said:

Did you bother to even watch the excellent video Tunder provided at
the start of this thread? It has 3 scientists from MIT as well as the
university of London, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who all do
not believe global warming is caused by man.

I've only watched part of it so far. But... given my opinion above, you
could probably guess that I wouldn't be impressed too much by some contrary
opinions.

Quoted message said:

They addressed every major point about global warming that concerned
me and that I have yet to hear any credible explanation for from those
that claim human CO2 is responsible for it.

Unless you're a world class atmospheric-climate expert, I wouldn't take your
opinion too seriously. I probably have a lot more relevant training and
experience than you do, but I really am not equipped to effectively evaluate
the enormous amount of data out there. And I wouldn't expect to find much to
work with in either this or Gore's films, although they are both
interesting.

Bottom line is that there are a few givens any model needs to take into
account.

One, global warming has and is happening.
Two, we've pumped very, very large quantities of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere in recent decades.
Three, the way these gases work in trapping atmospheric heat is quite well
understood.
The fact that there may be other factors at play doesn't negate the above.

Based on that, it would be difficult how one could argue with any legitimacy
that man has NOT affected earth's temperature.

Quoted message said:

Let's take perhaps the
biggest glaring hole. The nice little graph that everyone uses goes
back 600,000 years and shows a line of CO2 cycles and temp cycles.
The cycles fit together quite nicely, so this is a very effective
show. What they never address is, if CO2 is causing the warming,
why does CO2 always start it's up cycle 600-1500 years BEFORE the temp
starts to increase? I heard this exact question asked of one of the
alleged expert professors on global warming. His answer? "That only
means CO2 isn;t responsible for the first 600 years of warming."

Well, firstly the professor's statement would make sense only iif
temperatures start rising well before CO2 starts to increase. Did you get
that backward? Also, remember there are a multitude of other factors at
play, not just CO2 (which, by the way is NOT the only greenhouse gas).
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is probably the only time in
earth's history when something other than natural processes is raising the
concentration of greenhouse gases. And that makes it damned difficult -
risky, even - to accurately interpolate past data onto the present.

Just to confuse things...what circumstances tended to result in large,
relatively sudden increases in atmospheric CO2 in the past? One would be a
period of increased volcanic activity (because volcanoes spew out large
amounts of CO2). But the gases are accompanied by a lot of particulates,
which can stay in the atmosphere for years, effectively screening solar
radiation and possibly more than offsetting the greenhouse effect. Or not,
depending on many other factors. On the other hand, CO2 solubility is indeed
enhanced in cold water, so ocean warming caused by tectonic factors or solar
radiation variations would tend to gradually release CO2 to the atmosphere.
I would expect these solubility-temperature effects, however, not to be
super-rapid. As compared to the rather striking effects we've been seeing in
the last few decades. But again, there are more possibly offsetting factors
than you or I could imagine, let alone evaluate. Cause that's how earth and
atmospheric sciences are. Extremely complex.

Quoted message said:

Huh? That should bother everyone with even a high school education,
but to the proponents of global warming, no rational explanation is
even required, because, We just KNOW for a fact it must be caused by
man, so this glaring inconsistency should just be ignored.

Not really. You can guaranted that, given enough grant money and scientific
curiosity, these factors will, and probably are now being, evaluated.

Quoted message said:

That's
exactly what Al Gore did when he used the graph in his movie.

Please don't confuse popular video offerings with actual science. On either
side of the aisle.

Quoted message said:

On
the other hand, we have scientists who understand ocean science,
explaining that the big reservoir on Earth of CO2 is the oceans. And
as the Earth's temp rises, the ocean slowly warms, so they give up CO2
to the atmosphere, just like a warming bottle of soda. But the oceans
are so deep, it takes hundreds of years for the warming of the Earth
to cause the CO2 to increase, hence CO2 level follows temp. Hmmm,
now who's hairbrained?

That's just one of a myriad of factors. Truth is... we have a large number
of scientists who understand both ocean and atmospheric science, and who
believe that man's activities over the last century have contributed
significantly (though not necessarily exclusively) to the warming that is
now occurring. From what I've seen, that appears to be the consensus these
days, among qualified scientists, though not of course all.

HG

On May 30, 8:59 am, "Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

See, this is the typical attitude regarding global warming. Anyone
that dares raise a question is dismissed as a hairbrained idiot.

Well, not quite. Actually, what we seem to be seeing is the rather messy
argumentation and posturing and politics within the academic community that
is typical of any changeover of a major paradigm. Twenty years ago the
harebrained ones, the ones who couldn't get a hearing, who were castigated
in the relatively rare even that they did... were the scientists worried
about buildup of greenhouse gases and the potential for global warming. They
were the crazies then. Now, as more and more evidence is gathered and
assimilated... and of course as sea levels creep up and polar ice caps
melt... the tables have gradually turned.

Quoted message said:

As it happens, I was trained and worked for many years as a geologist.

Then it's quite shocking that you refuse to even look at a video, full
of credible scientists, that point out major holes in the global
warming story.

I'm

Quoted message said:

aware (and have observed first hand among colleagues) that this is
absolutely typical of how big changes in scientific thinking occur. Well
into a transition there will always be many legitimate scientists who will
fight against the trend, for reasons already given. Mostly because
scientists tend to get very emotionally and intellectually invested in their
own models/paradigms.

All the emotion on this is on one side and that is that global warming
is man made and going to kill us all. I don't see protests in the
street from the other side. I don't see major movies being made.

This is actually a good thing, because the old gaurd's

Quoted message said:

arguments will require continued scrutiny and refining of the new paradigm.
One big difference in the case of global warming, however, is that it is...
and was when the consensus was opposite... intensely politicized.

Quoted message said:

Did you bother to even watch the excellent video Tunder provided at
the start of this thread? It has 3 scientists from MIT as well as the
university of London, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who all do
not believe global warming is caused by man.

I've only watched part of it so far. But... given my opinion above, you
could probably guess that I wouldn't be impressed too much by some contrary
opinions.

Yes, and it's quite shocking to see how closed minded people can be.
I guess you think it's best citizens just swallow whatever their govts
tell them, without questioning it, or figuring out if it makes sense,
or if there are problems with it. You won't even look at an 75 min
video.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They addressed every major point about global warming that concerned
me and that I have yet to hear any credible explanation for from those
that claim human CO2 is responsible for it.

Unless you're a world class atmospheric-climate expert, I wouldn't take your
opinion too seriously. I probably have a lot more relevant training and
experience than you do, but I really am not equipped to effectively evaluate
the enormous amount of data out there. And I wouldn't expect to find much to
work with in either this or Gore's films, although they are both
interesting.

You know, you could at least watch the God damn video BEFORE shooting
your mouth off. I never claimed to be a world class climate
expert. There are world class experts on the video though. Hmmm, I
wonder if the UN made sure that each and every scientist on their list
of global warming "experts" is world class. Did the dismiss those
that back in the 70s said global cooling was upon us?

Quoted message said:

Bottom line is that there are a few givens any model needs to take into
account.

One, global warming has and is happening.
Two, we've pumped very, very large quantities of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere in recent decades.
Three, the way these gases work in trapping atmospheric heat is quite well
understood.
The fact that there may be other factors at play doesn't negate the above.

Based on that, it would be difficult how one could argue with any legitimacy
that man has NOT affected earth's temperature.

See, this is where once again, no proof is required and the hysteria
prevails. We've pumped very, very, large quantities of greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere compared to what? All the CO2 from man
when compated to the CO2 that occurs naturally is very small, not very
very large.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's take perhaps the
biggest glaring hole. The nice little graph that everyone uses goes
back 600,000 years and shows a line of CO2 cycles and temp cycles.
The cycles fit together quite nicely, so this is a very effective
show. What they never address is, if CO2 is causing the warming,
why does CO2 always start it's up cycle 600-1500 years BEFORE the temp
starts to increase? I heard this exact question asked of one of the
alleged expert professors on global warming. His answer? "That only
means CO2 isn;t responsible for the first 600 years of warming."

Well, firstly the professor's statement would make sense only iif
temperatures start rising well before CO2 starts to increase. Did you get
that backward?

Yes, I did state it backwards. And the fact that you aren't even
aware of this glaring problem with the graph, shows several things:

1 - The inverse relationship from what would be expected is never
cited or discussed when the proponents of global warming present the
graph, so few people are even aware of it. I spotted it myself on the
graphs, because, unlike you, I don't just accept everything, but
instead ask reasonable questions and expect reasonable answers.

2 - You didn't bother to even watch the video.

Also, remember there are a multitude of other factors at

Quoted message said:

play, not just CO2 (which, by the way is NOT the only greenhouse gas).

So? The proponents of global warming are telling us that man made
CO2 is the main cause and they are using this graph as one of the main
proofs, without ever explaining how it is that temp rises 600 - 1500
years BEFORE CO2.

Quoted message said:

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is probably the only time in
earth's history when something other than natural processes is raising the
concentration of greenhouse gases. And that makes it damned difficult -
risky, even - to accurately interpolate past data onto the present.

OK, so we can't even intrerpolate past data. And that again means it
should be accepted as an article of faith that the rise in CO2 is man
made and going to lead to our demise and that we should take action
that is going to cost people their lives? Yes, that's right, cost
people their lives. Because to switch from fossil fuels is going to
slow world economic growth. And that growth is what has increased
lifespan around the globe and pulled people out of poverty.

Quoted message said:

Just to confuse things...what circumstances tended to result in large,
relatively sudden increases in atmospheric CO2 in the past? One would be a
period of increased volcanic activity (because volcanoes spew out large
amounts of CO2). But the gases are accompanied by a lot of particulates,
which can stay in the atmosphere for years, effectively screening solar
radiation and possibly more than offsetting the greenhouse effect. Or not,
depending on many other factors. On the other hand, CO2 solubility is indeed
enhanced in cold water, so ocean warming caused by tectonic factors or solar
radiation variations would tend to gradually release CO2 to the atmosphere.
I would expect these solubility-temperature effects, however, not to be
super-rapid. As compared to the rather striking effects we've been seeing in
the last few decades. But again, there are more possibly offsetting factors
than you or I could imagine, let alone evaluate. Cause that's how earth and
atmospheric sciences are. Extremely complex.

Well, if it's so complex, how is it that we know for sure what's going
on? The answer is, we don't. In the 70's we had scientists telling
us they understood the same thing, that now they had computer models,
and that we were entering a new mini ice age, due to global cooling.
There were cover stories on Newsweek about it. Plans proposed to try
to intervene to stop it, by trying to shift ocean currents and God
knows what else. Hmm, sound familiar?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Huh? That should bother everyone with even a high school education,
but to the proponents of global warming, no rational explanation is
even required, because, We just KNOW for a fact it must be caused by
man, so this glaring inconsistency should just be ignored.

Not really. You can guaranted that, given enough grant money and scientific
curiosity, these factors will, and probably are now being, evaluated.

Oh, please. The fact that temp rises every time hundreds of years
BEFORE CO2 is such a glaring hole, that only a fool would run around
telling us the world is going to hell without FIRST figuring out how
this could be. Or at least question it. In fact, instead of
investigating it, the alarmists just dismiss it, exactly as you have.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's
exactly what Al Gore did when he used the graph in his movie.

Please don't confuse popular video offerings with actual science. On either
side of the aisle.

Say what? It's not like Al Gore made up the graphs. If you bother
to open your eyes and look, they are used by all the proponents of
global warming and are available from multiple sources. But
apparently, unlike me, you haven't even looked at these closely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On
the other hand, we have scientists who understand ocean science,
explaining that the big reservoir on Earth of CO2 is the oceans. And
as the Earth's temp rises, the ocean slowly warms, so they give up CO2
to the atmosphere, just like a warming bottle of soda. But the oceans
are so deep, it takes hundreds of years for the warming of the Earth
to cause the CO2 to increase, hence CO2 level follows temp. Hmmm,
now who's hairbrained?

That's just one of a myriad of factors. Truth is... we have a large number
of scientists who understand both ocean and atmospheric science, and who
believe that man's activities over the last century have contributed
significantly (though not necessarily exclusively) to the warming that is
now occurring. From what I've seen, that appears to be the consensus these
days, among qualified scientists, though not of course all.

HG

No, it's not the consensus. Again, you could at least take a look at
the video. There are credible scientists on there explaining how if
you disagree with the global warming crowd, you don't get funding, you
get ridiculed and death threats. There are scientists on there who
were part of the UN committee, who submitted work and opinions that
completely disagreed with the whole global warming crowd. Not only
did they leave out their work and opinions, they continued to use
these scientists names on the list of scientists who they said backed
the global warming postition. One even had to threaten legal action
to get his name removed. You call that open debate? Their minds
are about as open as yours. You've bought this whole thing, hook,
line and sinker. And when someone points out a glaring hole,
instead of saying Hmmm? Good question, that doesn't seem right, you
refuse to even thing about it.

And finally, if a "consensus" of scientists is all that is required,
and common folk shouldn't even question obvious holes in the story,
you better give up low carb. Because the overwhelming consensus of
medical and scientific experts say that it's bad and you should eat
low fat. End of story.

"Aaron Baugher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom G. said:

The conspiracy is that we are not being told about the seriousness
of peak oil.

We're not? I'm reading about this all over the place.

Worst. Conspiracy. Ever.

Quoted message said:

Somebody will have to do without. The economy will shrink and our
lives will be affected directly, or indirectly. Social programs and
infrastructure will decline. More poor people unable to get adequate
medical care. Food farming and transportation will cause temporary
shortages at first, until the changed economics gets worked
out. Jobs will open up in agriculture as manual labour.

People have been predicting this kind of stuff for as long as there
have been people. I'm convinced that when the first caveman
discovered fire, another caveman started to kick sand on it because
he was afraid they'd run out of sticks.

I believe that as well, and have often thought about the problems that
were encountered in the past and solved by our inventiveness. I don't want
to be pessimistic about the future. But there is some good evidence of prior
smaller civilizations that flourished and then disappeared. Some, like
Easter Island would have continued going about daily living until they
reached the maximum carrying capacity of the island. Seems they did run out
of sticks and there were no alternatives for them. There were probably many
that sounded alarms, but the majority wouldn't listen. The world itself is a
much larger place and more variables, but still finite. It's always easier
as well to look at things in hind sight than to predict the future.
It just makes sense to me that growth can not continue forever. Also
looking at animals in general, it seems that instincts are set for basic
survival and doing things with the least amount of work. That's probably
good for when the numbers are smaller and fighting tooth and nail helps to
preserve a species. When the populations go into overshoot for various
reasons, there is a lot of competition and hardship, and finally die off. I
see these similarities in us. Predicting when upper limits are reached is
difficult. As Trader4 pointed out about the stock market. It starts to
become evident that valuations are to high and they must correct at some
time. Just when I thought it could no longer be supported at 2500, it
doubled from there. So, right now 6.5 billion seems like a lot of people,
it's very possible 13 billion could happen.
Given those numbers and the fact that fossil fuels has allowed us to get
5 to 7 times more food per acre than would normally grow, it is very
possible we are in overshoot already, and just don't know it yet. The next
energy source will also have to be able to allow growing as much food. Of
course that's not the only problem. Topsoil is disappearing. We are taking
too much and not putting enough back in. Basically what I envision is that
we will hit the upper limits soon of a major problem we can not solve. When?
I don't know for sure. I just know our methods of living are not in anyway
sustainable.
We want too much. Food, cars, big houses, more stuff, large population,
safety, ease of living, more technology. We can have a few items, but not
all and for so many. I think even if we know we are going in the wrong
direction, we can't help ourselves. We are driven by desire and instinct.
Another thing that bothers me is that some of the large mammals are at the
point of no longer existing in the wild. That would be a shame. All life is
inter-connected, and we squeeze out other life forms so they have no where
to live. It shows how selfish we are and not very good stewards of the land.
You are right when you say we will run out of oil sooner or later, no
matter of how we conserve it. Price will also factor in. Also your point
about China and other up and coming nations will more than gladly use up
whatever we try to conserve. That is why I think that we will keep going
until nature imposes a limit on us. We are not smart enough to realize we
are animals as well and subject to the same laws of overshoot. We have done
a lot to ensure we have a good life and have been a sucessful species. Maybe
we are now doing too much. We have become dependant on a resource which will
run out soon. I don't see good enough replacements coming on board. I can't
be optimistic about the future the way I see things. Perhaps this is not
realistic, and I see things different then others and I'm wrong.
I do realize what you are saying about the predictions of past history not
coming true. I'm sure those people were thinking as I am now. This is also
why I believe we are destined to follow the path we going, because we can
not change our instinct. We will be shocked when it doesn't work out the way
we thought it should.

Quoted message said:

Yes, we're going to run out of oil, but that's no reason to beat the
rush to living in caves again. Nuclear power can replace it, whenever
we decide to stop being ninnies about it. Fission if we have to, but
fusion is coming along, and would a lot faster if we got serious about
it, instead of throwing so much funding at unserious alternatives like
ethanol. No one's going to starve unless we make a political decision
that forces them to. There's so much more abundance than people
realize. (I blame it on living in cities.)

I'm a conservationist, by the way. Abundance doesn't mean you should
be wasteful. I think people drive *way* too much, and we should get
back to designing our towns as neighborhoods where people can walk to
things. Urban sprawl isn't bad because it uses land -- we've got land
a' plenty -- but it ruins communities. We also need to stop wasting
huge amounts of water irrigating deserts to grow vegetables. And so
on. There are many ways we can be better stewards, without going into
a panic or beating ourselves up for having a productive, busy society.

Quoted message said:

We overdo everything we stick our fingers into. So far we have
managed to dodge the bullet because of being inovative. We fish until
they are scarce. We're depleting top soil at an alarming rate, and
bio-fuels will accelerate that. All the easy to get to metals ores are
being consumed, and the rest is deeper down. We've always managed to
find alternatives. This, I believe will be our down fall when we run
out of alternatives and we will be humbled.

Think about what you said, though: "We've always managed to find
alternatives." Why is that suddenly going to change? People 10, 20,
50, 100, 200, 2000 years ago all thought the same thing: "Well, we've
gotten away with it so far, but *now* we're screwed." They couldn't
see the alternatives coming, and neither can we.

There seems to be a weird reverse sort of societal narcissism at play
here, as if our generation is so important that the sky is finally
going to fall on us. It's as if we'd prefer to be known as the
generation that went down in history as The Big Failure, rather than
just another group of people who muddled through, getting some things
right and some things wrong. Infamy over anonymity.

Quoted message said:

In my opinion, oil has caused our population to go into overshoot
conditions. Our numbers will be reduced by choice or by nature, when
oil runs out.

Ugh, surely not population worries! That's the oldest pointless worry
in the book. In the USA, we pay farmers not to grow food, so there
won't be too much of it. Where people are hungry, it's because of
political restrictions and stupidity. Birth rates in the West have
gotten so low that European countries (and the USA, to a lesser
extent) aren't going to be able to maintain their welfare systems
without a massive influx of young immigrant laborers. (Only problem
is, the ones they're getting in general aren't so much the kind to
settle down and become productive taxpayers.)

Quoted message said:

Maybe when people are powered down for a few years, gov't may start
letting on that the oil is running out. But they'll probably say
it's not a big deal because we are familiar with doing with less,
and we've been powering down for years, so don't panic.

No one's going to power down in the first place unless prices go up.
That's what's so silly about this -- people talk like one day we're
going to be paying $3/gallon for gas, and the next day the tanks will
be empty. As the easy supplies get low and oil companies put more
effort into harder sources like shale oil, the price will gradually go
up, and at some point, people will stop driving two hours to work,
buying five-bedroom houses for families of three, and running their
kids across the city to soccer games every night. Economic pressures
work.

Yeah, it'd be great if we could start conserving now, and I'm all for
public campaigns to encourage that, but that's just not how people
work, for the most part. Besides, even if we cut back, we're still
going to run out of oil, just further in the future. All the viable
alternatives need to be explored regardless, and we won't be able to
afford as much research if we hobble our economy.

Also, nonsense like Kyoto is oriented on forcing the US to cut back
(and transferring large amounts of cash from the US to other
countries, like the ones that wrote the treaty). Even if the US cut
back, that wouldn't stop China and other countries from increasing
their energy usage. After all, they all want to achieve our level of
prosperity, if not our freedoms and culture.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

If you use those Compact Florescent bulbs, please take note of the
following:

#1. It is a Federal Crime to dispose of them in your garbage. Read the
label on the package. Then investigate what that means. Here in my
medium size city it is a 50 mile drive to the nearest EPA approved
disposal site

#2. If you break one, an EPA Cleanup will be required. As the EPA
considers 1000 Nano Grams of Mercury vapor to be a health hazard. Each
bulb contains more than that. One lady (a environmental wack job) on the
radio said she was quoted $2000.00 for the cleanup, or she could just
seal off her kids bedroom permanently

This is just one more case of “The Government knows better than you” If
you do not agree with them. They will enact laws to “Protect you from
yourself” Oh, and by the way. They will tax the [censored] out of you to be
able to ‘supervise’ it.

Hannah Gruen said:

Well, global warming is a fact. It's existance is not really in
dispute, given the effects we're seeing - such as disappearance of
so much ice worldwide, sea levels beginning to rise. I correct
myself - it's in serious dispute *only* in media and some political
circles. It's here, folks.

That's true. Studies other than the infamous hockey-stick hoax show
that we're about back to the temperatures of around the year 1500,
after a long dip in temperatures over the last 500 years, including
the "Little Ace Age" in the mid-1600s. Since those changes were not
caused by human technology emissions, it seems quite possible that
today's aren't either. Sun-spots appear to be the most likely
culprit.

I was reading about the Piltdown Man yesterday. The bones were
"discovered" in 1912, and almost immediately, some scientists started
questioning them. However, they were outnumbered by the ones that
latched onto it because it supported their theory about brain-driven
evolution. (The argument wasn't between evolution and creationism, as
people tend to think today, but between scientists who thought our big
brains came first and then the body followed (what the Piltdown skull
seemed to show) or whether other changes came first.)

By 1920, at least one scientist had debunked it. (Turned out it was a
human skull, an orangutan jaw, and teeth from something else.) But it
took until the 50s for it to be generally accepted as a hoax. In the
meantime, people spent whole careers studying the thing. In the 30s,
well after the truth was available for anyone interested, a monument
was erected at the site of the discovery to commemorate its scientific
importance.

So saying most scientists agree on a theory, when that theory happens
to support something else they already believe, just doesn't carry
that much weight.

Possibly the funniest thing about the global warming scare is that
even if we could pass a law tomorrow that instantly lowered the
temperature a few degrees, we'd have to be crazy to do it. Periods of
cold temperatures in history are associated with starvation and bare
substinence living. Warmer periods bring increased food production
(which is ultimately what it's all about) to most areas of the globe.
There are exceptions, of course, but overall, life is better during
the warm end of the cycle.

Quoted message said:

Definitely our greenhouse gases are contributing - almost certainly
significantly - to any natural climate cycles. Yes, I could find
scientists to dispute this, or the degree of significance of
greenhouse gas contribution. Why? Because whatever harebrained
contrarian theory is out there, you can always find scientists to
support it. That's a fact. Some will be defending their previous
conclusions, some just to be contrary, some because there is
something (usually money/research grants) in it for them.

Wow. Replace a few words, and that paragraph could be written by
someone in the health establishment about low-carb researchers.

Quoted message said:

Well, I'll agree here, but I'm not sure energy is yet that critical
nor that difficult to deal with. However... with the sharp increase
in fossil fuel use in places like China, there will be
competition. We're already seeing hostile political actions (and,
it's my belief - wars) resulting from such competition. This stuff
could mostly be avoided if our "leaders" would lose their fixation
on fossil fuels and back to energy independence and renewable energy
sources. Not that hard, once the political will is there. The course
we're on, however, is insane.

We aren't using fossil fuels because our leaders have a fixation.
They're not like an autistic kid with a ball, who won't stop bouncing
it no matter what's going on around him. They can see what's going
on, but the reality is there isn't that much they can do about it.
They can't just make the problem go away, and they can't do much to
cut consumption without major restrictions on our freedoms. As for
the idea some push that it's all due to some Bush-Cheney-Haliburton
conspiracy: if that were the case, why didn't anything change when
Clinton was president, especially when he had a Democratic Congress
for two years? We've thrown a lot more money at alternative energy
sources under Bush than ever before.

We use fossil fuels because they're quite simply chock-full of energy
that's fairly easy to access -- far more so than any other form
currently available to us. The "green" alternatives are mostly useful
for specific uses or in specific areas where the population isn't too
great, and we're a-scared to death of nuclear power. What are our
leaders supposed to do?

Quoted message said:

But IMO the big question is what will be the outcome of rising
temperatures, increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases. It's all
guesswork, albeit some more educated than others. As ocean
temperatures continue to rise, will massive release of condensate
gases from ocean bottoms trigger runaway heating of the atmosphere?
To what extent (if any) will increased albedo from increased cloud
cover offset all this? It definitely IS true that the eventual
outcome could pretty well end civilization and wipe out much of the
population.

That's a pretty big claim. I think humanity is a bit more tenacious
than that.

Having said all that, I really like Orson Scott Card's recent articles
<http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-08-1.html> about how we
need to ditch our car-bound society and build neighborhoods where
walking and public transport are real options. It's nice to read
someone who's a real conservationist without being a scare-monger.
We're wasting a lot of energy (and making our towns less livable) with
zoning laws that encourage things like big box stores on the edge of
town that you can only drive to. The trick is figuring out how to
change that in a free society, which has almost nothing to do with who
gets elected nationally.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Pat said:

Well known rule of thumb: the person that resorts to emotions and
name-calling is the one on the wrong end of the argument.

You lose.

Who appointed you judge? And for the record, I never called anyone
any names. However, if you look at someone else's opening remarks to
one of my posts, that person referred to those that question global
warming as hair-brained. I guess that 's not name calling or
emotional, because that coincides with your own deep thnking on the
issue.

Thanks for weighing in!

Well known rule of thumb: the person that resorts to emotions and
name-calling is the one on the wrong end of the argument.

You lose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well known rule of thumb: the person that resorts to emotions and
name-calling is the one on the wrong end of the argument.

You lose.

Who appointed you judge? And for the record, I never called anyone
any names. However, if you look at someone else's opening remarks to
one of my posts, that person referred to those that question global
warming as hair-brained. I guess that 's not name calling or
emotional, because that coincides with your own deep thnking on the
issue.

Thanks for weighing in!

Nobody needs to "appoint" me anything. That's my opinion. You have
constantly defaulted to emotional statements in stead of rational arguments.
Ergo, you are the one lacking in "deep thinking."

Quoted message said: