4 Years to Go.

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 4 Years to Go.

Page 3 of 12 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12 Next

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:28 am

In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

Econ 101 says that if there is only 65 million barrels available, then
that is the supply. Demand will determine the price of that oil. Demand
cannot be for 115 million barrels when there is only 65 million barrels
available, that's nonsense.

Study more, boi-economist. Demand is not determined by available
supplies.

Quote:

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal.

Your understanding of this topic is margial, at best, but that doesn't
stop you from making wild-assed claims, eh?

Quote:

As the price goes up,
alternative sources of oil will become economically viable.

Via magic?

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:33 am

On Jun 17, 4:50 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

Population, Resources and Environment by the Ehrlichs.http://www.amazon.com/Population-Resources-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/d...

It seemd very convincing at the time.

I've come to realise that doom-mongering is usually wrong.

Graham

What prediction did they get wrong?

You said we're still here as if that's a counter-proof of their
claims. Most likely you misread or misinterpreted what they said.

One this is certainly true, they did not predict the absolute death of
all humans by the year 2007. If anything they predicted an economic
downturn and a life more difficult in 2007 than the life people had in
the 1960s.

And by that measure they are right. In the 1960s people worked less
and got more than they do today. Today two worker households are
common and rising prices outstrip income. Pretty soon we'll likely
bring back child labor and ask ourselves does everyone really need a
high school education? And this is the lucky ones. The unlucky ones
like the 900 million people in Africa, will likely die of starvation
disease and fighting over limited resources.

So, they pretty much got it right as far as life being harder today
due to overpopulation..

They also likely predicted new incurable diseases due to
overpopulation and decimation of the environment.

In the 1960s major diseases were being beaten back by increasing
sophisticated medical research that was widely applied by a healthcare
system that took an ever smaller bite out of a rapidly growing
economy.

Today, major new incurable diseases like AIDS are coming ever faster
out of places like Africa, places that are overpopulated and have
decimated their environment because of overpopulation. Meanwhile,
health care costs are rising dramatically as the availability of good
healthcare diminishes in the face of rising costs driven by a rising
demand in a population growing so rapidly all its needs cannot
reasonably be met. In such an environment we ask ourselves does
everyone need to be healthy?

So, they pretty much got that one right too.

In the 1960s Buckminster Fuller and others said that with increasing
automation and ever higher standards of living available through
automation, that people would not have to be regimented and organized
to produce goods and services as they were in the past. He saw the
coming of an age where people would experience freedom unprecedented
in history. Everyone would be educated to the very highest of levels
and everyone would be free to be creative and spontaneous and all the
necessesities would be free, and we'd compete with one another for the
greatest and grandest of things - who could contribute the most
stunning things at the most creative and fundamental of levels. And
this generation, and every generation to follow would have a life
fundamentally richer and better and wiser than the genrations that
went before. We would feel sorry for our fathers and our fathers
fathers for what they have missed of today, and we in turn would feel
badly we could not enjoy the riches and joys of the future with our
offspring.

The authors of the book you cite likely said that in the face of
uncontrolled population growth that such visions of future would
likely not come to pass. In the early 21st century humanity would be
less free than it is today (1960s) and be looking toward a future of
diminished expectations. They likely said that in an over populated
world in the future those alive will be jealous of those who wasted
resources in the past and impoverished them and they would feel badly
about what little they could leave for their children who would have a
life far less free and harder than they.

On this too I think they got it right.

You know, in the novel 1984 by Eric Blair (George Orwell) Winston
Smith after making love with his girlfriend admires a flower in a park
and thinks everything is right with his world. This reminds me of the
experiences of a friend of mine who survived Auswitch under the
NAZIs. Harry was 8 when he went to the camps and was 12 when he was
released. He survived many horrible things, far more horrible than
the fictional character of Winston Smith. But he recalls one summer
when he was 9 - he stood hungry and alone at the edge of the camp,
hemmed in by barbed wire guard dogs and men with machine guns mourning
the loss of yet another friend and looking at the woods in the
distance wondering if he would ever get to walk in them. And he turns
and sees growing out of the mud near his feet - a tiny perfect
flower. To him it gave him hope and courage. And he survived.

The ability of humans to fool themselves that things are alright is an
essential feature to surviving hard times. The authors of that book
written generations ago were attempting to warn their fellows of the
dangers and perils we could have easily avoided had we listened to
them. We didn't avoid them, the world we live in today is in many
ways more constrained and more narrowly confined than the world of
1960. So, they were right. Just as Winston's enjoyment of forbidden
sex in the world of 1984 made life berable for him, or as Harry's
discovery of a small flower gave hm hope in time of sadness - they
would be wrong to think that they lived in the best of all possible
worlds. Because Winston deserved to live in a society that didn't
kick him in the groin for an eternity, and a 9 year old boy deserved
to walk in the woods and enjoy himself even if he was jewish.

And we deserve a world that is better than this one. And ignorant
people like you Graham, took it away from us. That's why I don't like
you very much.

..

Guest

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:47 am

On Jun 17, 2:30 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Quote:

Don Priebe wrote:
After all, if you and Graham don't think hydrogen is a viable energy
source
(as you just said) don't believe there are any issues such as global
warming and impending oil shortages that hydrogen may address - WHY
THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE? haha..

Or why is this posted to misc.taxes ?

Why not?

Some people believe that hydrogen use ought to be supported with
government subsidy. All such efforts actually delay adoption of
competitive technologies using hydrogen. Just as release of sterile
medflies during mating season diminsh the next population of medflies,
so too does the creation of businesses that rely on government subsidy
take resources and manpower away from businesses that do not. Capital
formation in an economy is limited. Capital going into a company
whose business model is to extract value from a subsidy is capital not
going into a company whose business model is to extract value from the
oil companies. A subsized business is contained and controlled. A
profitable business that takes market share from another in the market
place, is not.

This is why major oil companies support alterantive energy research
and promote government subsidy.

All such subsidies should end.

The US government has spent 50 years and $100 billion on fusion energy
research, while classifying the codes and basic science of
thermonuclear fusion. The US government has subsidized coal conversion
with substantive tax credits for nearly 40 years - to the tune of $120
billion - and the only thing it produced was a tax scam - where people
bought coal, painted it with latex, and sold it for much the same
value - but claimed they were producing liquid fuel (in the interface
between the latex and the coal dust) and claime a $3 per ton tax
credit (the major profit) and then sold the tax credit to hotel chains
and the like. The US government has run the NREL and a number of
reserach offices for decades at the cost of tens of billions of
dollars and has produced study after study that says government
scientists can't think of a way to make cheap alternative energy
therefore it can't be done - and have outlined all the ways things
couldn't be done.

If the government must do something, and it needn't do anything except
get rid of all the bullshit surrounding energy, the US government can
achieve innovation in energy by sponsoring a comprehensive review of
all reguations that impairs or impedes competition in the energy
sector and eliminate them. There are many. And then, give a tax
credit to PRIVATE INVESTMENT in alternative energy business - with the
proviso that to be good, it must take a certain market share away from
the major oil companies within five years or measurably reduce costs
of energy and measurably increase use of energy again in five years.

Eeyore

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:47 am

Guest

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

Population, Resources and Environment by the Ehrlichs.http://www.amazon.com/Population-Resources-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/d...

It seemd very convincing at the time.

I've come to realise that doom-mongering is usually wrong.

What prediction did they get wrong?

Notably predictions of widespead famine.

Critics of Ehrlich have shown that in practice, famines can be avoided through land rights, i.e. the cause of famine for all
practical reasons is primarily human behaviour not one of population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

Ehrlich wrote an article that appeared in New Scientist in December 1967. In that article, Ehrlich predicted that the world would
experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources. Ehrlich wrote that "the battle to
feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash
programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980," and "I
have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971."

the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide usage, and the nation's population
would drop to 22.6 million by 1999

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Graham

Robert Sturgeon

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:41 am

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:08:22 -0000, Willie.Mookie@gmail.com
wrote:

Quote:

Demand at some particular price is not the same as demand at
another price. If oil starts getting very much more scarce,
the price will rise and use will decline. Some oil crisis
worry warts act as if economics has no effect on the supply,
price, and use of oil.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Robert Sturgeon

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:44 am

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:11:29 GMT, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

The newsgroup is SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN

After all, if you and Graham don't think hydrogen is a viable energy source
(as you just said) don't believe there are any issues such as global
warming and impending oil shortages that hydrogen may address - WHY
THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE? haha..

Haha indeed.

This newsgroup is not sci.energy.hydrogen-lovers.

It is not even sci.energy.hydrogen. It is (more accurately,
they are) sci.energy.hydrogen, misc.survivalism, misc.taxes.

Quote:

You falsely presume its mere existence must be interpreted as meaning hydrogen
use as an energy carrier is 'good'.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Stuart Grey

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:00 am

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:08:22 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 16, 10:08 am, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:07:10 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

snip

One wonders why Eeyore posts here since he doesn't believe we're
running out of oil,

We are running out of oil, but you don't know that from the dire
predictions of peak oil in 4 years.

Demand for oil in 2025 according to a recent Chevron ad will be 115
million barrels per day projecting current rates of growth in energy
use worldwide.

The ability of the world's oil industry to produce oil will drop to 65
million barrels per day by 2025 according to a recent DOD/CIA
estimate.

I don't know what you mean by 'dire predictions' but certainly there
is a shortfall of about 50 million barrels per day that will have to
be made up. Either by a reduction in demand due to skyrocketing
prices, or by an increase in supply by creating new alternatives to
oil.

You're using different meanings of the words "supply" and "demand" that
are different.

Econ 101 says that if there is only 65 million barrels available, then
that is the supply. Demand will determine the price of that oil. Demand
cannot be for 115 million barrels when there is only 65 million barrels
available, that's nonsense.

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal. As the price goes up,
alternative sources of oil will become economically viable. It's probably
economically viable to make oil from coal right now, given the price of
coal and the high price of gasoline. I suspect that this isn't done
because of the political risk of leftist obstruction.

Quote:

doesn't believe that global warming is real,

Sure it is real, but it is not man made,

On that you are very likely wrong.

No, I am right.
1) Other planets are warming: Mars, Jupiter, Pluto are all showing effects
of planetary warming.
2) CO2 is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor. Water vapor
and CO2 absorb IR in many of the same bands, so the additional warming due
to CO2 in the presence of Water vapor is small, even trivial. One paper
shows it to be less than 1/10 of a degree.
3) While CO2 is correlated to global temperature, this is because
temperature increases CO2 concentrations in the air by shifting the
atmosphere to ocean equilibrium constant to favor the air. Most all of the
CO2 emitted into the atmosphere enters the ocean. Further, ice core data
shows that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases in time. The
simple principle of causality rules out CO2 as a cause: either temperature
is the cause, or there is a common cause.
4) There is a much stronger correlation between solar cycle and global
temperature. The most likely mechanism has to do with cloud formation and
solar radiation.

The counter argument is full of fallacies: Correlation proves causation,
omitting relevant data, falsifying data, appeals to popularity, appeals to
authority, appeals to complexity, and so on. Why would a "scientist" do
this? Consider that many of them are funded by the IPCC, a governmental
organization that represents the general assembly of the United Nations,
many members of which are third world dictatorships that stand to make
billions in carbon credits and relocated industry of America is foolish
enough to sign the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty itself didn't promise to
lower CO2 levels by one molecule, as the third world, China and India were
exempt from the CO2 limits, thus the world production of CO2 could even
increase. Consider that Al Gore, the most famous spokesman for
anthropogenic global warming, was caught red handed with a $300,000
"donation" (aka BRIBE) from the Chinese Red Army; the Chinese Red Army
stands to make trillions if the US had signed the Kyoto treaty.

- Scientific evidence says there is trivial amounts of Anthropogenic Global
warming; the warming is solar based.
- We know the fallacies of the anthropogenic global warming theory.
- We know that the "scientist" who advocate the anthropogenic global
warming theory are shameless lying whores pimping their degrees to aid in
a the defrauding of the American people of their economic wealth.

< snip gibber based on a false assumption and advanced by the ridicule
fallacy >

< snip hydrogen gibberish >

Quote:

Hydrogen may be an interesting way to move energy about, but it is not
an energy source; it is an energy sink.

I speak colloquially and you're just being obtuse.. But your point is
taken. Hydrogen does not occur naturally and requires a primary source
for its creation. It is secondary and must be made from a primary
source like nuclear fission or nuclear fusion - as from the sun.

But if that's your position then that's also true of petroleum products
too. Over the long term they have captured solar energy for us.
Hydrocarbons are derived from solar energy captured a long long time ago
and sequestered by a combination of geological and biological processes.
So, by your definition - no source of energy, coal, petroleum, and even
hydrates are really primary sources of energy. They're secondary with
the sun or the nuclear processes in the center of the Earth being the
primary originating source.

You quibble. The essential difference between fossil fuels and hydrogen is
that Fossil fuels are there and available to use, and hydrogen is not. You
need an energy source to make hydrogen, but the fossil fuels exist already.

I now suspect I've mistaken you for a rational human being, as you are
just gibbering contrary garbage, trying to contradict every objective fact
and every logical step just because you don't like the conclusion due to
your emotional involvement with the issue.

Quote:

There are no
free sources of hydrogen on earth.

There are no primary sources other than fissile materials and sunlight
by this definition. And there is copious sunlight arriving on the Earth
each day. Solar energy may be captured directly and made into
electrical current and that current electrolyze water into hydrogen and
oxygen rather easily. Hydrogen may be then be used wherever we now use
hydrocarbons - without relasing carbon into the environment. Solar
energy heats the air and moves it, and that movement may be captured in
windmills and that intermitten source of energy may be made into
eletricity ,and that electricity used to electrolyze hydrogen in a
manner similar to solar collectors. Solar energy drives the water cycle
and that water may be captured where topology is favorable in the form
of hydroelectric power and since that source is not particularl
intermittent in nature, may be used directly as an electrical energy
source without storage in the form of hydrogen. Solar energy may be
captured by the action of the biosphere in hydrocarbons which may be
burned for heat as well after some chemical processing. Or directly as
in wood. And nuclear energy can be released from fissile materials and
the heat produced made into electricity and that electricity used
diretly. Electricity may also be used to make hydrogen from water via
electrolysis. Gen IV reactors may also be used in a sulfur/iodide based
reaction to convert 800C heat directly into hydrogen and oxygen from
water input - and that hydrogen used as all the other sources of
hydrogen described above.

So, in this way, even though hydrogen may not be a primary energy source
per se, hydrogen can form teh basis of a viable energy economy, provided
hydrogen can be made from solar and other nuclear sources cheaply enough
to make it competitive with existing source of fossil fuels.

he's looking more and more like a hired thug just to argue with and
shout down any conversation in this newsgroup so that it doesn't
become a reliable and cogent source of informatoin sharing among like
minded folks.

You appear to be projecting.

Not at all. The newsgroup is SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN - if someone routinely
posts offensive and off-topic and highly disruptive responses to someone
having a discussion of global warming, peak oil, and the ability of
hydrogen to address some of these issues that some believe are facing
us, it is certainly perfectly reasonable to conclude that those
disruptive persons have some other agenda. After all, if you and Graham
don't think hydrogen is a viable energy source (as you just said) don't
believe there are any issues such as global warming and impending oil
shortages that hydrogen may address - WHY THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE?
haha.. Obviously one reasonable answer is that you are here to BE
disruptive of clear cogent conversation.

< snip some really stupid gibber that Hydrogen is okay even though we need
to provide an energy source to produce it because oil originally was
produced by sunlight - a process we can't repeat for a billion years or so... >

That is some really idiotic gibber. If you're intelligent, I find it
insulting you're foist that shit at me and expect me to believe it. If
you're stupid, well, stupid is as stupid does, and I'm the one wasting my
own time.

Stuart Grey

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:04 am

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:29:21 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

The relevance of the OBJECTIVE FACT that authorities made false
predictions in the past is that appeal to authority is a fallacy.

yes, yes; I know that they teach appeal to a relevant authority is not a
fallacy in the philosophy department, but in the science department,
appeal to authority is a fallacy. I can point out one Nobel prize winning
authority who says so.

Quote:

Humans are very adaptable.

Ya, war has a way of reducing the load.....

War had nothing to do with population reduction. All the wars in the 20th
century killed fewer people than smallpox, for example.

Robert Sturgeon

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:26 am

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:00:18 -0500, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

(snips)

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by 'dire predictions' but certainly there
is a shortfall of about 50 million barrels per day that will have to
be made up. Either by a reduction in demand due to skyrocketing
prices, or by an increase in supply by creating new alternatives to
oil.

You're using different meanings of the words "supply" and "demand" that
are different.

Econ 101 says that if there is only 65 million barrels available, then
that is the supply. Demand will determine the price of that oil. Demand
cannot be for 115 million barrels when there is only 65 million barrels
available, that's nonsense.

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal. As the price goes up,
alternative sources of oil will become economically viable.

I just read an article suggesting that right now the
break-even oil price for CTL (coal to liquid) technology
(what the Germans used over 60 years ago) to be economically
viable is $40/barrel. And the U.S. has more CTL potential
barrels of oil than Saudi Arabia has oil. Between ethanol
and CTL, we could be substantially oil-independent in a few
years, if we had the will to do it. But we would have to
defeat the anti-oil, anti-energy, anti-human leftists.
Given how screwed up the U.S. is, that seems very unlikely.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Dan Bloomquist

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:56 am

Guest

Eeyore wrote:

Quote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

Population, Resources and Environment by the Ehrlichs.
http://www.amazon.com/Population-Resources-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/B000AR7K2Y

It seemd very convincing at the time.

I've come to realise that doom-mongering is usually wrong.

Doomer, chicken little, these are ad hominem responses to the issue.
Paul and Anne didn't crunch the right numbers therefor there are no such
numbers. Are you really that naive?

So tell me Graham, what asset class will we exploit next to keep money
supplies growing? Bernanke is presently posturing to defend the dollar,
not save the housing market. Japan has created a carry trade bubble, a
bubble the likes that have not been seen for generations. But this time
around we do it without the ability to treat resources as if limitless.
China needs to grow their economy at a breath taking rate to absorb a
migrant workforce that increases at 25 million per year. Europe is like
a drug addict and needs more energy every year from the dealer, Russia.

Can we feed 10 billion in forty years? It is not impossible. But that
would be a much different world. Your problem is that you have no sense
of scale. You think Jakarta will save the world as if the hundreds of
quads/year in real demand are not the issue.

You are an ostrich with a very limited sense of real world numbers. You
will never defend your rosy view with numbers instead of rhetoric. But
I'm sure you will keep posting as if you have all the answers......

Dan Bloomquist

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:02 pm

Guest

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Quote:

Errr, you have that backwards. That oil becomes limited leads to demand
destruction. This in turn has a direct effect on growth. Cause and
effect in the monetary system have little to do with a simplistic
argument from econ 101......

Bill Ward

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:10 pm

Guest

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:00:18 -0500, Stuart Grey wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:08:22 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

On Jun 16, 10:08 am, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:07:10 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

snip

One wonders why Eeyore posts here since he doesn't believe we're
running out of oil,

We are running out of oil, but you don't know that from the dire
predictions of peak oil in 4 years.

Demand for oil in 2025 according to a recent Chevron ad will be 115
million barrels per day projecting current rates of growth in energy use
worldwide.

The ability of the world's oil industry to produce oil will drop to 65
million barrels per day by 2025 according to a recent DOD/CIA estimate.

I don't know what you mean by 'dire predictions' but certainly there is
a shortfall of about 50 million barrels per day that will have to be
made up. Either by a reduction in demand due to skyrocketing prices, or
by an increase in supply by creating new alternatives to oil.

You're using different meanings of the words "supply" and "demand" that
are different.

Econ 101 says that if there is only 65 million barrels available, then
that is the supply. Demand will determine the price of that oil. Demand
cannot be for 115 million barrels when there is only 65 million barrels
available, that's nonsense.

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal. As the price goes up,
alternative sources of oil will become economically viable. It's probably
economically viable to make oil from coal right now, given the price of
coal and the high price of gasoline. I suspect that this isn't done
because of the political risk of leftist obstruction.

doesn't believe that global warming is real,

Sure it is real, but it is not man made,

On that you are very likely wrong.

No, I am right.
1) Other planets are warming: Mars, Jupiter, Pluto are all showing effects
of planetary warming.
2) CO2 is trivial in concentration compared to water vapor. Water vapor
and CO2 absorb IR in many of the same bands, so the additional warming due
to CO2 in the presence of Water vapor is small, even trivial. One paper
shows it to be less than 1/10 of a degree. 3) While CO2 is correlated to
global temperature, this is because temperature increases CO2
concentrations in the air by shifting the atmosphere to ocean equilibrium
constant to favor the air. Most all of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
enters the ocean. Further, ice core data shows that CO2 increases lag
behind temperature increases in time. The simple principle of causality
rules out CO2 as a cause: either temperature is the cause, or there is a
common cause. 4) There is a much stronger correlation between solar cycle
and global temperature. The most likely mechanism has to do with cloud
formation and solar radiation.

The counter argument is full of fallacies: Correlation proves causation,
omitting relevant data, falsifying data, appeals to popularity, appeals to
authority, appeals to complexity, and so on. Why would a "scientist" do
this? Consider that many of them are funded by the IPCC, a governmental
organization that represents the general assembly of the United Nations,
many members of which are third world dictatorships that stand to make
billions in carbon credits and relocated industry of America is foolish
enough to sign the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty itself didn't promise to
lower CO2 levels by one molecule, as the third world, China and India were
exempt from the CO2 limits, thus the world production of CO2 could even
increase. Consider that Al Gore, the most famous spokesman for
anthropogenic global warming, was caught red handed with a $300,000
"donation" (aka BRIBE) from the Chinese Red Army; the Chinese Red Army
stands to make trillions if the US had signed the Kyoto treaty.

- Scientific evidence says there is trivial amounts of Anthropogenic
Global warming; the warming is solar based.
- We know the fallacies of the anthropogenic global warming theory. - We
know that the "scientist" who advocate the anthropogenic global warming
theory are shameless lying whores pimping their degrees to aid in a the
defrauding of the American people of their economic wealth.

Excellent summary. Crossposted to alt.global-warming for cage-rattling
purposes.

<snip>

Dan

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:14 pm

Guest

Eeyore wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
Willie.Mookie wrote:

One wonders why Eeyore posts here since he doesn't believe we're
running out of oil,
We are running out of oil, but you don't know that from the dire
predictions of peak oil in 4 years.
Demand for oil in 2025 according to a recent Chevron ad will be 115
million barrels per day projecting current rates of growth in energy
use worldwide.

*** " projecting current rates of growth in energy use worldwide." ***

There's the flaw.

Clearly it can't happen.

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

Yeah, just think of all those happy-go-lucky Africans in Darfur!

Dan

Dan Bloomquist

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:18 pm

Guest

Stuart Grey wrote:

Quote:

Econ 101 says...

Nothing about the real world and money mechanics.

Quote:

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal.

Do you know what happens when money supplies can't be made to grow?

Quote:

It's probably
economically viable to make oil from coal right now, given the price of
coal and the high price of gasoline. I suspect that this isn't done
because of the political risk of leftist obstruction.

Ahhh, a political agenda. It is about cost and as long as ME natural gas
can be treated as limitless GTL is the new frontier for fuels. But if
you are talking 20-30 mb/d from coal over the next 20 years you really
need to understand the immensity of these numbers. Read the Hirsch
report for a primer on mitigation and the time it would take even if we
were doing something about it.

Get a grip and learn from history. Mankind doesn't 'fix' the likes of
our present challenge. Up until now we have treated energy as limitless
and is the reason it has worked so far. But the truth is that we had
fought two world wars over energy in the last century, even when it was
virtually limitless. What do you think happens when 'cheap' energy is
truly limited?

Dan Bloomquist

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:20 pm

Guest

Stuart Grey wrote:

Quote:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:29:21 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

The relevance of the OBJECTIVE FACT that authorities made false
predictions in the past is that appeal to authority is a fallacy.

That is irrelevant. How about just sticking to the numbers...

Quote:

Humans are very adaptable.

Ya, war has a way of reducing the load.....

War had nothing to do with population reduction. All the wars in the 20th
century killed fewer people than smallpox, for example.

You just don't get it.......

Page 3 of 12 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:09 pm Science Forum Index