Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are plenty of global warming econazis who claim any scientist that refutes global warming is a shill for oil company research money. As such, it doesn't surprise me that many so-called "deniers" claim that scientists who believe in global warming are merely shills for government grant money.
As for the so-called "climatic consequences" of burning fossil fuels... Until one of these environmental experts can explain the causes of the Medieval Warming Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, and how the Vikings were able to farm sheep and grow barley in Greenland 1000 years before the worldwide burning of hydrocarbons, I am going to remain skeptical of their motives.
Al Gore who has no background whatsoever in environmental science, meteorology or climatology, and who made his career in politics has seen his personal wealth multiply 10 times over since he first started pushing "An Inconvenient Truth".
Coincidence? I think not.
I've heard that climate denial rhetoric many times but you're changing the subject. This post was trying to focus on wasting finite oil and the insanity of doing that under any circumstances. Unless you can prove that oil is not finite, and/or that something else could replace its many uses, why would you want to waste it on ego and gluttony? Why would fossil fuel companies not want to scale back and stretch their legacy as long as possible?
I thought conservatives went by the old adage "waste not, want not" instead of "waste a lot, want more." They get outraged when money is squandered but fail to make the connection when physical resources are depleted prematurely. Money only exists because of physical resources that drive the economy. Many people treat money as an entity apart from nature, forgetting how it all got started.
To put it another way, if you were stuck on an island your whole life and all the available water was in a natural cistern that wasn't getting replenished, wouldn't you use it sparingly? That's an analogy, so don't try to tear it apart with denier-style logic. The point is that most Americans are gluttons and don't think ahead.
This post was trying to focus on wasting finite oil and the insanity of doing that under any circumstances.
The point of this article was to try to toss another unfavourable coat of paint on those of us that are skeptical to the extent and effects of so-called climate change. If it were not, the OP would not have directed his question only at "skeptics". They are not the only ones using oil to heat their homes, fuel their vehicles, power their aircraft or enjoy the benefits of industry.
I am turned right OFF by the UN and its Agenda 21. Key language in Agenda 21 refers to "smart" technology, "sustainable" practices, "cap and trade", and they have admitted that "climate change" is just a way to get their "sustainable" agenda pushed forward. Their plans for the US during this century would shock liberals and conservatives alike. These elite globalist types are SICK.
Their untimate goal is eugenics, lower standards of living for all people, redistribution of all wealth (except theirs, of course), the erasure of all country borders and the abolition of all private property. Sorry, but I am not a communist or a socialist and history has proven abundantly that such systems do not work, and do not last. Take away incentive, and the world becomes lazy!
All American people - liberals and conservatives alike - should join together in fighting this forcible attack on our way of life. Indeed..."divide and conquer" is one tactic that works, but not to our advantage!
You've not studied Peak Oil at all, have you? I put a graph in the original message - look at it. We will not just "adjust" to something else. It takes decades to transition energy sources and most people are still ignoring the obvious signs of oil scarcity, like the peaking of conventional crude around 2005 and the need for costly shale fracking and tar sands mining.
Oil is so unique that it's really irreplaceable. We need it to last as long as possible, even if some unforeseen substance could replace its transportation utility. In energy terms, fossil fuels are capital, not income. It's like giving society a large savings account and watching it squandered on ego and luxury items.
So your idea is that we should adopt some Rube Goldberg mechanism to manage things? The market has quite nicely transitioned us to fracking since 2005, possibly because of peak oil. Do you really think some genius like B. Hussein Obama or Al Bore can do a better job than the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah
I am turned right OFF by the UN and its Agenda 21. Key language in Agenda 21 refers to "smart" technology, "sustainable" practices, "cap and trade", and they have admitted that "climate change" is just a way to get their "sustainable" agenda pushed forward. Their plans for the US during this century would shock liberals and conservatives alike. These elite globalist types are SICK.
Their untimate goal is eugenics, lower standards of living for all people, redistribution of all wealth (except theirs, of course), the erasure of all country borders and the abolition of all private property. Sorry, but I am not a communist or a socialist and history has proven abundantly that such systems do not work, and do not last. Take away incentive, and the world becomes lazy!
All American people - liberals and conservatives alike - should join together in fighting this forcible attack on our way of life. Indeed..."divide and conquer" is one tactic that works, but not to our advantage!
I think you nailed it, actually. This is more about redistribution of wealth than about "climate." If you ask any of them if their actions will reduce a single temperature in the future by a single degree on a single date you won't get a straight answer. You'll get "we have to start somewhere" or "we have to do something." What they're doing even they don't know.
That is really the problem right there. The Republican party is backed by the Koch brothers, who are big oil. They make billions off of oil
Warren Buffett, big donor to the Democrat party, makes lots of profit off of oil as well. It's his BNSF trains that are hauling crude from Canada and the Bakken to the Gulf Coast refining complex - while consuming plenty of diesel and lubricating oil.
Now you know the real reason why Obama won't let the the Keystone XL pipeline be put into service.
With a global use of 100 million barrels of oil being used everyday and rising i cant believe there are people out there who believe there is no climatic consequence to this level of fossil fuel consumption
Pray tell, why isn't all that "greenhouse gas" escaping from "the hole in the ozone layer" that the environmentalists were squawking about a few decades ago?
Warren Buffett, big donor to the Democrat party, makes lots of profit off of oil as well. It's his BNSF trains that are hauling crude from Canada and the Bakken to the Gulf Coast refining complex - while consuming plenty of diesel and lubricating oil.
Now you know the real reason why Obama won't let the the Keystone XL pipeline be put into service.
Oh please. Firstly, conservatives have more children than liberals and red states use more federal money for things like food stamps than blue states. Liberals don't WANT to spend money supplementing incomes, which is why we are fighting to raise the minimum wage and give EVERYONE a salary boost, but in the meantime, we aren't going to let people starve to death either.
Secondly, if you are going to go with that theory, then you should be all for abortions and birth control access so as to keep the population down and conserve resources. Oh wait, conservatives hate that.
I'm not a conservative.. I'm a (social) libertarian and in fact support abortion up to say 20 weeks. We've made a lot of progress in the US to regulate pollution and have done a good job. I just don't believe banning 4 cylinder engines and making people go 55 is the answer. Those who want to use more gas will pay more for it. Regulation pollution from things like lawn equipment and outboard motors would be on my list...
Myself I'll take the Honda Civic and hypermile to try to get as good of gas mileage as I can but in the end I like my speed on the interstate and I'm gonna go 80. I also have a 2.5 mile commute to work. I'm cheap.. I don't want to pay a lot for gas or waste time commuting. I'm green up to a point...
You want to start somewhere get China to stop polluting so much...
A really good question is, why aren't we all running on ethanol?
Because ethanol has less energy content than "pure" gasoline. And burning 100% alcohol has lots of built-in risk and maintenance issues.
We should be using more natural gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Secondly, if you are going to go with that theory, then you should be all for abortions and birth control access so as to keep the population down and conserve resources.
No, the rest of us are not responsible for some other person's choices. People should be responsible, using self-control and birth control (that they pay for). Anyone who can't afford birth control certainly can't afford to raise a child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
