Man-Made climate change is a con

kjk wrote:

...we still have an impending energy crisis on our hands and we still have the Earth's natural resources being depleted at a disturbing rate. Sea levels are threatening to rise high enough to flood major metropolises like New York City within the next 50 years.

I'm sorry but these statements are so ridiculous I couldn't let them pass by.

There isn't an impending energy crisis. Even at $147/barrel oil supplies were plentiful. In fact, they were so plentiful that the price crashed by over 70%! According to the Department of Energy known oil reserves in 1980 measured 645 billion barrels. By 2008 known reserves had grown to 1,331 billion barrels. There is now twice as much oil available as there was in 1980 despite more oil being used each year. At current usage, with no new oil being discovered, there is 43 years worth of oil available. There's also 300 years worth of coal and constantly improving renewable technologies. We won't run out of energy anytime soon. Other natural resources have also seen recent price declines, indicating that there is more supply than demand. Price rises when a resource becomes rare, it doesn't fall.

As far as NYC flooding, the IPCC's worse case scenario for sea level rise is 23 inches. That means the water would reach Gary Coleman's waist. Unless the majority of NYC is less than 2' in altitude (it's much higher) there won't be massive flooding.

Oh and so our government which says it's impossible to build an illigal alien proof fence between Mexico and the U.S. is now going to be capable of controlling and changing

the weather!!! PLEASE!

43 years of oil reserves qualifies as plentiful? Jesus, my sense of proportion must be pretty warped.

How can you claim that the recent price crash indicates anything other than the oil companies' fear of losing business? We're in the middle of a recession. The cost of extracting oil isn't going to get any cheaper in the future time, either. Economics isn't a perfect science, or we wouldn't be having troubles in the first place.

While it is true that there is more than enough coal to meet our needs for 300+ years, coal is by far the most polluting of the fossil fuels. One need only look at urban China's air quality for proof, where coal is even burned straight for heat because it is so cheap. Air pollution due to burning coal has been causing cancer and death in China for some years. Who cares how much coal there is if its usage creates a hostile environment?

A Cambridge University study submitted to the IPCC states that if Greenland's ice sheet ALONE were to melt completely, sea level would rise 23.6 feet. That's without even taking into consideration the West Antarctic ice sheet melt, which would be an estimated 16 feet. Both are melting.

And also, the renewable energy technology needed to replace our fossil fuel energy already exists. Even a method for burning saltwater as car fuel exists (not very practical, but just goes to show). Little animosity surrounds solar technology, a virtually pollution free and endlessly available option, so its simply a matter of making it more public. That would displace the oil corps, unless of course they already realized oil is dead-ending and began flaunting their new alternative energy plans (Chevron, anyone?). That way they can get a firm hold on the alternative energy market once it emerges to replace fossil fuel. Simple.

But I can see anyone can believe either one set of statistics and arguments, or the other. Pardon me for being an alarmist.

The 43 year estimate is based on no more oil being found ever. Considering reserves have doubled over the last 28 years while usage has increased that's a far fetched scenario. 43 years is the low estimate, the likely estimate is much longer. Besides, in 43 years I'll be dead and you'll be 56.

Your assertion that the oil companies crashed the market so we wouldn't stop buying oil just illustrates your complete ignorance of how the market works. Do you really think the millions of participants in the markets colluded to manipulate the price? Almost all the oil producing countries are losing money at current prices. Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are facing major financial crises because they're losing money so fast. Do you think they're doing this on purpose just to keep you from buying a Prius?

Coal is dirty compared to other fuels, but that doesn't mean the dirt has to come out of the smokestack. Most of the electricity made in the US comes from burning coal, and yet Americans aren't dropping like flies from breathing the air. Chinese coal burning technology is about 50 years behind ours, I don't think anyone is suggesting we follow the Chinese model for anything. Again, I'll point out that there is not an impending energy crisis.

So did the folks at Cambridge say how high the temperature would have to get to melt all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica? According to Susan Solomon, co-chair of the latest IPCC report, if the highest estimates of temperature rise did come to pass it would take several centuries if not a thousand years to melt all the ice in Greenland. I can't believe you even mentioned Antarctic ice melting. The vast majority of the continent never gets above freezing - never. Global temperatures would have to rises by 20-50 degrees to melt all the ice there. No one is suggesting that.

Being an alarmist is one thing, but the things you're suggesting are just loony.

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Besides, in 43 years I'll be dead.

Wow. Hope you don't have kids you self-centered ass.

Over 30,000 scientists have signed this. I haven't seen it on the news channels and I never will. That's because it doesn't work with the propaganda they are pushing. If someone can tell me the average temperature each year from the previous one thousand years, maybe I might think we are causing global warming. oops I mean Climate Change. But they can't because they didn't have the weather channel back in the day. Besides, the Scientist who started the weather channel doesn't believe in man-made climate change anyway.

Burning coal isn't even close to clean no matter how its done. Sure, our plants are superior to the Chinese, but that doesn't mean we could screw everything else and run the world off coal once oil is gone--at least without polluting ourselves to death.

Neither Greenland nor Antarctica has to melt completely, by the way, or even a quarter of the way, to cause catastrophic damage. If sea level rose by one meter, global sea level coastlines would retreat nearly a mile. This one meter rise is predicted by the IPCC to happen within this century. Meaning parts of NYC do flood, along with New Orleans, the Florida gulf coast, perhaps 1/3 of Shanghai, much of Bangladesh, the Nile Delta area...

adam smith strikes again. more people like it warm than cold. mother nature is responding.

most of the whining liberals and social parasites live near sea level. bring on the flooding.

not in the news wrote:

You won't hear this on the news, however you did see news that the start of the Iditarod had to be moved because of "global warming".

Here is the headline that you will not see.

4 Time Iditarod Champion Pulls Out of Sled Race - Too Cold

FAIRBANKS — Defending champion Jodi Bailey of Chatanika won a bitterly cold, blustery Gin Gin 200 late Sunday night. Several mushers had pulled out of the race from Paxson to the MacLaren River Lodge -- including four-time Iditarod champion Jeff King -- citing the adverse conditions. According to the race Web site, temperatures at the MacLaren River Lodge were between 35 and 40 below. It was reportedly 10 to 15 degrees colder on the lower portions of the trail during the second portion of the race.

HAHAHAHA I wasn't going to get involved in the conversation because I don't know too much about the topic. But here it is folks, proof that global warming doesn't exist, someone dropped out of a sled race due to cold temperatures. You're absolutely right, the media (collectively, of course) didn't report on it because they want us to think global warming is real. What an incredibly astute individual you are! Had you made this observation a few years back, you could probably have positioned yourself for a cabinet post in the Bush administration.

johnnyb1610 wrote:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Over 30,000 scientists have signed this. I haven't seen it on the news channels and I never will. That's because it doesn't work with the propaganda they are pushing. If someone can tell me the average temperature each year from the previous one thousand years, maybe I might think we are causing global warming. oops I mean Climate Change. But they can't because they didn't have the weather channel back in the day. Besides, the Scientist who started the weather channel doesn't believe in man-made climate change anyway.

This petition is a joke. Anyone can sign it and claim to be a "scientist." Further, barely 100 of the 31000 are actually climate scientists. That is like getting a petition from 31000 football and basketball players saying that high mileage workouts do not increase VO2 max. What do they know?

Coal is extremely dirty. Look at the massive coal ash spill in Tenn. Look at mountain top removal mining in WV. Look at the mercury levels in fish. "Clean" coal is an extremely expensive process to remove smoke stack pollutants, but doesn't address the mining and waste problems. And carbon sequestration is a nice ideal, if you like betting on whether an earthquake will trigger a leak that will suffocate everyone on the surface.

Oil is in decline in a big way. Russia's military excursion into Georgia was primarily inspired by the need for Gazprom to secure an interest in Caspian Sea oil and gas. The Russian oil fields are all in decline. The Middle East oil fields have probably peaked. But we will never really know because countries like to lie about their reserves in order to secure credit lines to finance their governments. The rest of the oil is very expensive to extract and/or very low grade, requiring more refining. Oil companies have spent billions on exploration and have not even broken even on their investment. No one is finding anymore easily exploited oil anymore. It is all deep sea or hard to extract (shale, tar sands).

43 years of oil is a very deceptive statistic. Those 43 years are the backside of the bell curve. All of that oil is very expensive to get out of the ground and to refine into gasoline.

If you add the risk of global warming to the risk of declining oil supplies and you would be a fool to just sit back and see what happens.

beeper wrote:

If sea level rose by one meter, global sea level coastlines would retreat nearly a mile. This one meter rise is predicted by the IPCC to happen within this century.

The worst case scenario published in the latest IPCC report is 23", not 1 meter. their best case is 7". Past IPCC estimates have been higher than the reality that followed. NYC will not flood because of sea level rise. Places like coastal Bangladesh and New Orleans are below sea level. They will flood whenever a storm hits no matter what the global temperature is.

John Smallberries wrote:

43 years of oil is a very deceptive statistic. Those 43 years are the backside of the bell curve. All of that oil is very expensive to get out of the ground and to refine into gasoline.

According to the DOE (

) world reserves have risen every year for the last 8 years. They are twice what they were in 1980, despite greater rates of consumption. If the "backside" of the bell curve is the part that's going up then I guess you're right. Some of that oil will be expensive to get out of the ground, but not even close to all of it. Right now there is an oil glut. Iran has started parking tankers in the gulf just to keep their oil off the market, and yet prices are near historic lows.

Yes coal is dirty, I never stated otherwise. But technological advances have cleaned up coal burning plants in the US. The air in the US is cleaner now than it has been for nearly 100 years. How do you suggest we heat and power our homes? Firewood and candles? But that leads to deforestation, increased chance of dying in a fire, and potential carbon monoxide poisoning in the home!

joie de vivre wrote:

Wow. Hope you don't have kids you self-centered ass.

Too late, I already have a kid. He was adopted from an orphanage. I'm one selfish bastard.

Since you're more altruistic than me the thing you should (according to your warped view of reality) sterilize yourself. There's certainly no need to inflict your progeny on the environment.

Subtract Canadian tar sands and 2003-2008 world reserves are basically flat. We are definitely on the back side of the curve. There is a big difference between recovering oil from a sweet Saudi field and recovering oil from 25,000 ft below the ocean. Also, when an oil field goes into decline, it takes much more energy to pump the remaining oil out of the ground as the natural pressure of water and gas are used up. The other problem is that there are declining supplies of metals used in oilfield pipe. The deeper the well, the more pipe needed. This will make the bell curve deeper.

Homes can and are being heated by home geothermal units and can and are being powered by solar and wind power. Toyota just annouced it is developing a 100% solar car. The only reason fossil fuels continue to dominate is because they have control of the political system. We didn't invade Iraq to take control of its solar energy potential. Solar, wind and renewables recieve chicken change in terms of government support compared to what the fossil fuels industry gets in terms of tax treatment, political/military support and lack of government regulation to properly account for cost externalities (pollution, spills, workplace accidents, etc.). If the fossil fuel industry recieved no government candy, had to match renewables in terms of environmental stewardship and did not have the support of the US military, then there would be no comparison between the cost of fossil fuels and renewables.

Poor kid.

Joie de vivre wrote:

Poor kid.

Way to get personal. You're very classy. Can't come up with legitimate environmental statistics to argue on this thread?

diaper dandy wrote:

***When you line up the global average temperature plots with the CO2 plots over the last several hundred thousand years, there is a striking correlation. If you use CO2 as a predictor of temperature, it is undeniable that the global average will rise far higher in the near future than it ever has.***

This is what every global warming advocate gets wrong. An increase in temperature causes biological activity to increase, and the bi-product of biological respiration is CO2. So yes, there is a "striking correlation" between temperature and CO2 because changes in temperature cause changes in CO2.

BRM, forgot to change your handle again?

I just think most parents care about the planet's available natural resources for more than 43 years out.

I'm happy to say I have better things to do than google for stats for entertainment.