POLITICS - Global Warming,better believe it

[El Mac]

Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.

You first!

[Grizz]

Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.

You first!

+1

the something has gotta be done crowd should be the first lemming to jump off the precipice.

you know, act on their convictions, like they really mean it.

but usually that isn't even close to what they really mean.

what they usually mean is that about 75% of the world's population should disappear for their benefit....

so, like the man said: you first.

[hfcable]

Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.

You first!

+1

the something has gotta be done crowd should be the first lemming to jump off the precipice.

you know, act on their convictions, like they really mean it.

but usually that isn't even close to what they really mean.

what they usually mean is that about 75% of the world's population should disappear for their benefit....

so, like the man said: you first.

if you really ananlyze it, it is likely that if even 20% of the worlds population vanished in short order, civilization, of the advanced variety we are used to, would collapse. a decrease of 25-50% would have to occur over at least a CENTURY OR TWO in order not to cause a severe collapse.

[El Chivo]

I think this prosperity we have is due to our increased population. Think about it, twice as many people, all making a living, which most do by serving their fellow man. And competing. We have tons more choices than we used to have, and I think it's because of population growth.

Sure, the roads are crowded, but we have a higher standard of living.

Most of the population is still crammed into a few cities anyway. I live in one of the biggest, and can drive just 15 miles and spend the whole day in the mountains without seeing another soul.

Relax. Ok, the ice age is coming, order a Gore-Tex electric suit from the Sharper Image catalog.

[Ysabel Kid]

When The Rich and Famous ( Al Gore included )
Give up there Private Jets, Big Houses ( Plural ) , Yachts, etc....

THAN CALL ME, THAN I will consider doing my part...

Untill than , Leave me the Hell alone....


IT'S ABOUT CONTROL> CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT"S ABOUT THEM, !!!!!!! NOT THE EARTH....

+1 When those some environmental bed-wetters start endorsing - no, demanding - that we increase electrical generation through the cleanest and most efficient means at our disposal - nuclear - then I may take them a bit seriously. All the "global warming/climate change" movement is about is worldwide socialism pushed by destroying capitalism and freedoms to "save the planet".

[Peter M. Eick]

The first thing they teach you in basic geology as a geologist is that the seas go up and the seas go down. The do that because the earth warms up and the glaciers/ice cap melts and then it forms up again and the seas go down.

Its been going on since time immortal.

If you look at an average regional seismic section from the gulf coast or the midcontinent you can see this pattern played out over and over again.

Now the global warming tie in.

As it was pointed out very early in this thread, the reason we even have a country north of us is because the ice is melting back from the last glacial advance. We have been in global warming for a while otherwise the great lakes would be called the "ice bowl" and most of where the politicians create trouble from would be buried with a mile of ice.

Had it not been for global warming, Houston here would be high and dry looking out about 100 odd miles (give or take depending on the timing you pick) to the gulf of mexico which would be about 200 ft lower.

Now, I ask the global warming believers, how did this happen when there were no cars, boats, steel, internet, or any other man made thing to speak of in existence at that time?

Obviously this is just a natural cycle that we must deal with.

Now, if the global warming believers really want to address something. Don't worry about the greenhouse gases, go after the people. Get rid of say 3 or 4 billion people on the planet and we would have a lot less greenhouse gases to deal with. No global warming fanatic seems to ever want to go to this level of simple solution.

[YellowHorse]

Gas is almost $4.00 a gallon here, anybody know about those new fangled hybrids ?

The difference in fuel economy between a standard 4 cyl Honda Civic and a Civic Hybrid does not justify the multi-$ thousand price premium. Get the standard Civic or an equally economical compact. My daughter drives a 2001 Toyota Solara 4 cyl coupe and gets 32 MPG. It's not worth trading to get a 38 mpg car just for the difference in mileage until here Solara dies. And at 64,000 miles, it's still a youngster.

Noah

The GM economy cars w/ manual trannys are excelent gas savers while being very reliable (don't get the autos, they are plagued with numerous mechanical problems).

We've had no mechanical problems except replacing a clutch and another car had to have a radiator fan replaced.

They are pretty base, but they get you where you need to go very reliably and economicly and are really cheap to buy.

He'll drive them at least to the 250K range, usually close to 300K

Our current 1997 1.8L Saturn SL w/manual trans gets 40 mpg hwy and about 35 city.
It has over 230K miles on it and still going strong.

IT'S ABOUT CONTROL> CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT"S ABOUT THEM, !!!!!!! NOT THE EARTH....

Exactly!

The only reason I look for gas saving cars or "go green" is that it saves money, NOT for some phantom control over the environment.

We are all responsible for the stewardship of this earth, but we also gotta figure out how to get to work and put food on the table
If you are physically able to do so, ride your bike or walk, but some of us don't live close enough to work or grocerie shopping to make that practical or even possible.

You can also blame ordaneces and planning codes. If your house was right next to a dairy, low income housing next to mansions and middle income tracks and farms, a grocery store, the library, etc, etc then would you need to drive?
But no, we all want to be segragated into little neighborhoods of houses of the same income class and be separated from commercial dist. and God forbid we live near a dairy or ranch.

I've even had it in my head to hitch my draft horse up to some wagon and drive her into town, she's cheaper to "fuel" and more "fuel efficient" than our gas saving car, plus it would be fun, but the city ordanances wouldn't allow it

BTW, has anyone heard what has become of the man and his invention of an engine that could run several hundred miles on a few ounces of water? That's an answer right there to the dependence on unrenewable oil, but it has just slipped away.

I think anyone who comes up with these inventions has a right to profit from their idea, but time and again we see what happens, they and their inventions dissapear. The big oil companies are not going to want to give up any profit they are making on their monopoly of the supply of energy. Heck! I am invested it oil and I would be dissapointed to see that check dissapear with the need for oil is diverted to something else.

Someone needs to have the foresight and duty to post and disperse their plans and designs all over the place for free so that they may not be silenced and supressed.

[KWK]

All the "global warming/climate change" movement is about is worldwide socialism pushed by destroying capitalism and freedoms to "save the planet".

Depends on how the "solution" is implemented. If implemented as a tax, then it is simply a way to increase socialism. If carbon production is awarded (based on production in the recent past) as a property right, then it is not. Capitalism will deal nicely with the later scenario.

I'm not convinced the global warming observed is caused by man. I suspect it is, but it may well be superimposed on a natural cycle not yet understood.

As for oil supplies, folks, if you've been reading the financial press for some years, you'll be hard pressed to find serious oil analysts who predict that supply can keep up with demand for more than another decade or two. After that, the price goes through the roof. Expect gasoline to run well over $15/gal on a good day. Such prices are needed to get people to cut back, and shortages always produce prices high enough to drop demand. It's over $8/gal in Europe already (due to taxes), and people still drive cars a lot.

Yeah, there were claims the oil was running out in the 70s, but that was no lie. It was said to be running out in the US, and production there has in fact declined. The US is still the 3rd largest producer of oil, but it is slipping. Total world production is likely to follow in the not distant future.

Oil has been great fun, but the rest of the world is finally industrializing, and the party will soon be over.

Whether there is overpopulation will be answered later this century. Ag production levels are heavily dependent on massive use of oil. When the oil gets dear, the price of ag products will rise fast.

Fortunately, there's a lot of inefficiency in the food production chain. If we give up beef, etc., there's a lot more people that can be fed on the available land, even with reduced energy supplies.

It will be interesting to see play out. I'll be dead before the big poop hits the fan (I think), but my kids are going to see it, of that I'm certain.

[piller]

If global warming were true, then wouldn't that mean that the sea level would drop. Have you ever filled a glass with ice, then filled it to the rim with water. Do this and watch the level drop as the ice melts. This is simple science, and if those preaching global warming are wrong on it, doesn't it follow that their science is wrong on more points. As for the pine beetle, mighn't it be that pesticides or something have eliminated its predator. Humans have done harm to the environment, and when that happens we should try to figure out how to repair the damage if possible. Considering the 1800's had a year without a summer in North America due to a volcanic eruption, there is room for debate over just how much we can do anyway.

[KWK]

Do this and watch the level drop as the ice melts.

This presumes most of the ice is already floating in the water. Much of the ice pack instead rests on land.

[sore shoulder]

Personally I feel the world would be better off with at least 50% population reduction, 75% would be even better.

You first!

+1

the something has gotta be done crowd should be the first lemming to jump off the precipice.

you know, act on their convictions, like they really mean it.

but usually that isn't even close to what they really mean.

what they usually mean is that about 75% of the world's population should disappear for their benefit....

so, like the man said: you first.

I have said for years that if those who believe man is such a threat to the planet followed thier convictions to thier utlimate end, they would do the planet a favor and kill them selves. I usually get in a lot of trouble for that one. Which is fine.

[sore shoulder]

The difference in fuel economy between a standard 4 cyl Honda Civic and a Civic Hybrid does not justify the multi-$ thousand price premium. Get the standard Civic or an equally economical compact. My daughter drives a 2001 Toyota Solara 4 cyl coupe and gets 32 MPG. It's not worth trading to get a 38 mpg car just for the difference in mileage until here Solara dies. And at 64,000 miles, it's still a youngster.

Noah

The environmental impact of a hybrid is much higher due to the batteries. Also, batterries degrade, so a hybrid only gets that higher mileage for a portion of the batteries lifetime. As the batteries degrade, mileage is reduced. This is all beside the fact that the hybrid uses a mechanical drivetrain, something we should have abandoned decades ago, just like locomotives did, so it really is no revolutionary advancement. However the gear and lubricant manufacturers can't have that, so we are saddled with outdated technology in the age of space travel and stealth.

[Leverdude]

I do think theres too many of us tho. Cant see how it matters if we could all fit in Rhode Island.

So, what are you willing to do about it?

I believe God meant what He said when He gave the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. I'm good with it because it's God's will. The earth isn't overpopulated, it's over-regulated by do-gooders who think they know what's best...... like there's even one of them I'd care to follow....

Grizz

Not sure what to do about it Grizz. I figure nature will do it just like she does when fish in a pond over populate. I'm not asking for more regulation but I think lacking any our over population would be obvious.
If not for the doo gooders we would be seeing many more populations decimated by starvation, disease & war than today. Many of these do gooders do their good in Gods name in the form of charity & other support from church groups. I donate frequently myself. As a human being, seeing human suffering bothers me. But facts are facts & the fact is most of our population only survives by taking from other places. If you cant get what you need from your own environment theres too many of you, from a biological standpoint anyway & eventually things will catch up.

I dont try to blame God for our problems. He said be fruitfull & multiply sure. But he also created many population controlers we defeat regularly.
In the end His will will prevail, no question about it.

[AmBraCol]

One thing that REALLY cracks me up is folks complaining about the CO2 emitted by domestic cattle. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, there are less bovines roaming the continental US than there were 500 years ago. And then there's the repeated decimation of the African plains game - again leading to drastically reduced numbers of CO2 emitting critters... Just sayin'...

[Hobie]

But Paul, there's more of us humans, also gas emitters... just sayin'...

[AmBraCol]

But Paul, there's more of us humans, also gas emitters... just sayin'...

Hobie, put down the cabbage and beans and back slowly away....

[Hobie]

But Paul, there's more of us humans, also gas emitters... just sayin'...

Hobie, put down the cabbage and beans and back slowly away....

Beans I'm not so fond of, cooked cabbage I don't touch, but kimchee, well that's a different story!

Thing is, I KNOW I'm not the only emmitter on this forum.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

As for oil supplies, folks, if you've been reading the financial press for some years, you'll be hard pressed to find serious oil analysts who predict that supply can keep up with demand for more than another decade or two. After that, the price goes through the roof. Expect gasoline to run well over $15/gal on a good day. Such prices are needed to get people to cut back, and shortages always produce prices high enough to drop demand. It's over $8/gal in Europe already (due to taxes), and people still drive cars a lot.

Yeah, there were claims the oil was running out in the 70s, but that was no lie. It was said to be running out in the US, and production there has in fact declined. The US is still the 3rd largest producer of oil, but it is slipping. Total world production is likely to follow in the not distant future.

I think this is misleading. The US is slipping because other countries are producing more. Further, the environmental movement has produced pressure away from domestic production and refining growth over the most recent decades ... examples would be the refusal to pull oil out from the gulf coast near Florida or that no new refineries have been built in the US in the last 30 years. We're not dependent here because we're running out ... our politicians have made a conscious choice to make us dependent on foreign oil because they lack the will to push domestic production.

Here's an interesting article on the issue. It's opinion and though I can't say I wholly agree, the article does present some interesting points.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 823656.ece

[KWK]

I think this is misleading. The US is slipping because other countries are producing more.

Sorry, the sad fact is that despite massive investment in incredible new technologies, oil production at home has been in decline for three decades now. How desperate the measures have been can be seen in the factoids on this site.

I have said for years that if those who believe man is such a threat to the planet followed thier convictions to thier utlimate end, they would do the planet a favor and kill them selves.

Such silly remarks add nothing to the debate. If couples have two children on average, the population begins a long steady decline. In all the western countries, people have taken to having about 1.8 per couple on the average.

If people are willing to give up meat, wildlands, etc., we can likely support twice the current worldwide population, at least for a while. Certainly, the more minds there are, the better the odds of finding solutions to limits to continued growth. Whether such a population density will have the resources needed to seek and implement the solutions is debatable.

[sore shoulder]

I think this is misleading. The US is slipping because other countries are producing more.

Sorry, the sad fact is that despite massive investment in incredible new technologies, oil production at home has been in decline for three decades now. How desperate the measures have been can be seen in the factoids on this site.

You may want to revisit your second link and the site owners request not to hotlink his site to preserve bandwidth. However I see that the whole premise of that site is that we should limit our usage. How am I to believe my cutting back on usage will have any real effect, when just one cargo container ship hauling stuff from China uses as much fuel in 8 hours as my F350 has in 250,000 miles over a 12 year period? That site is pretty pictures that mean nothing. It does not address all the offshore oil we are restricted from tapping due to EPA concerns, meanwhile Russian and Chinese interests that care nothing for the environement are freely tapping these sources.

Also, production in the US is not down because of a lack of sources, it is down because any developement here is in a stranglehold of EPA restrictions and state nannyism, something the middle east and other third world sources do not have to deal with.

I have said for years that if those who believe man is such a threat to the planet followed thier convictions to thier utlimate end, they would do the planet a favor and kill them selves.

Such silly remarks add nothing to the debate. If couples have two children on average, the population begins a long steady decline. In all the western countries, people have taken to having about 1.8 per couple on the average.

If people are willing to give up meat, wildlands, etc., we can likely support twice the current worldwide population, at least for a while. Certainly, the more minds there are, the better the odds of finding solutions to limits to continued growth. Whether such a population density will have the resources needed to seek and implement the solutions is debatable.

Which debate is that? And apparently you missed the context in your rush to criticize me. Read the other posts I quoted. If my remarks are to be categorized as silly, yours would be best categorized as irrelevant, shortsighted, and the product of Marxist ecoterrorist dogma.

[stretch]

Hobie, you DEFINITELY ain't the only emitter in this locale.........

The climate has varied enourmously on earth even during the
very short time (relatively speaking!) that man has been around.
The Vikings farmed Greenland a thousand years ago, but
it's too cold now. The "Little Ice Age" in Europe lasted into
the 18th century and killed hundreds of thousands of people.

That said, we as humans have changed the face of the planet more
than any other animal species. More people equal more pollution.
Imagine how much cleaner things would be if we halved the population
overnight. Up and coming third world economies are very hard on
the planet - same as the United States was when it became industrialized.


All of that said, it always amazes me that very few world leaders
even mention the obvious fact of human overpopulation on the planet.
If we want to control human impact on this little world, that's how we
need to do it. 8 billion folks living like we do in the US is just not
sustainable over the long term without serious and possibly
irreversible negative effects on both the planet and our species.

[KWK]

My apologies to that site's owner. The most interesting fact they note is that the US output per well is tiny. Surely this indicates many (most?) of the existing fields are pretty well tapped out.

I've not read of any major new fields off the US. There was one in the news recently, but nothing more is being reported. The greenies may have temporarily halted production in a few spots, but nothing stops the oil companies from searching for more. They are quite aware of what the price of oil will become in a few decades, and that gives them every reason to look for more sources locally, even if they can't produce from them in the current political environment, for that environment will change once the price skyrockets. Still, they have little to show for their searches.

It is patently silly to suggesting someone who feels there are too many people on the plant go kill himself. Population can decline without such measures as war and suicide; indeed, it seems to be natural in the developed world.

[Jason_W]

I do think theres too many of us tho. Cant see how it matters if we could all fit in Rhode Island.

So, what are you willing to do about it?

I believe God meant what He said when He gave the instruction to be fruitful and multiply. I'm good with it because it's God's will. The earth isn't overpopulated, it's over-regulated by do-gooders who think they know what's best...... like there's even one of them I'd care to follow....

Grizz

Not sure what to do about it Grizz. I figure nature will do it just like she does when fish in a pond over populate. I'm not asking for more regulation but I think lacking any our over population would be obvious.
If not for the doo gooders we would be seeing many more populations decimated by starvation, disease & war than today. Many of these do gooders do their good in Gods name in the form of charity & other support from church groups. I donate frequently myself. As a human being, seeing human suffering bothers me. But facts are facts & the fact is most of our population only survives by taking from other places. If you cant get what you need from your own environment theres too many of you, from a biological standpoint anyway & eventually things will catch up.

I dont try to blame God for our problems. He said be fruitfull & multiply sure. But he also created many population controlers we defeat regularly.
In the end His will will prevail, no question about it.

That's pretty much how I feel about the population problem. I'm sure the planet can even handle even more people. however, I'd be willing to bet that any continued increase in population will be accompanied by a decrease in quality of life.

Most of us here enjoy hunting. Will there really be any place to hunt when the population of the US hits the 1 billion mark? Then, at some point, we're simply going to run out of resources, and everyone except society's upper eschelon will probably starve.

Unless, of course, someone figures out how to build a star ship, or terraform other planets. Such technology is likely millena away from being a reality.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

I've not read of any major new fields off the US. There was one in the news recently, but nothing more is being reported. The greenies may have temporarily halted production in a few spots, but nothing stops the oil companies from searching for more.

Yes, there was one in the news recently ... I believe you may be referring to the 80.0 billion in the Dakotas that was in the news in the last couple of weeks. Though 80.0 may be a bit of a stretch. I'm sure we'll hear of a new Green campaign to save the grasslands of the Dakotas soon.

Yes, temporarily halted production in a few spots ... you mean ANWR at 4.0 to 10.0 billion barrels or Florida at 4.3 to 9.8 billion barrels. There are more, obviously but those are prominent. It's also nice to see the Chinese will be drilling in the gulf to tap the reserves off of Florida's coast.

The current price of gas here and the actions of the "greenies" will probably not go unnoticed during this election cycle. Only time will tell if it will be enough to swing the election. Currently the media seems to be blaming GWB for the issues ... not that he's a genius mind you. Eventually, the people may wake up and notice that Congress is halting the drilling in many US fields due to lack of political will.

[sore shoulder]

It is patently silly to suggesting someone who feels there are too many people on the plant go kill himself.

That is not what I said.

[Grizz]

There are deep wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are producing oil from 35,000 feet and deeper. Those pools are untapped and it's estimated they contain enough useable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.

THAT'S RIGHT, 200 YEARS WORTH OF OIL.

Also, there is enough coal and coal sands and shale in the US to supply our needs, at our present rate of growth, for two hundred fifty years.

THAT'S RIGHT, THERE'S ANOTHER 250 YEARS OF ENERGY ON OUR CONTINENT WITHIN OUR BORDERS.

The only reason that we aren't using is the politicians and residents who hate America are forbidding our access to this mineral wealth and forcing us to buy jihad oil from our mortal enemies, the sauds and their ilk.

But, Americans may not find the will to make it happen before the arabs and their leftist allies in America fatally wound our Nation.

[Old Ironsights]

250 years of oil at current use levels. If we are going to survive the collapse of Europe and the ME, we are going to need to increase our energy consumption exponentially.

What we need is more Nukes. And Fast.

[KWK]

That is not what I said.

My mistake, then.

it's estimated they contain enough usable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.

I think that would have made the financial press. Can you point me to press releases from the relevant oil companies? That could be worth investing in. There were reports this year of a major find off the US coast, but not of that magnitude; the amounts you mention would dwarf Saudi Arabia.

[Grizz]

That is not what I said.

My mistake, then.

it's estimated they contain enough usable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.

I think that would have made the financial press. Can you point me to press releases from the relevant oil companies? That could be worth investing in. There were reports this year of a major find off the US coast, but not of that magnitude; the amounts you mention would dwarf Saudi Arabia.

I did have some info bookmarked, when I find it I'll post it. It has made financial news. For instance look at drill rig production, mud boat production, and the shortage of crews in the gulf region.

[Rimfire McNutjob]

... What we need is more Nukes. And Fast.

I agree. Even if we find and pump more oil here, it's still a world market and the cost will move with the market. With China and India using more, it will still be hard to keep the price down unless we hit the geological lottery.

I'm all for Nukes. Look at the French, they're 80+% nuclear ... and they did it without surrendering to anyone along the way.

I've wanted to do photo-voltaics myself but my state is not particularly progressive as concerns Net Metering laws. I'm a strong believer in point-of-use optimization where a baseline of your electrical demand is generated locally to avoid the typically large transmission losses.

[sore shoulder]

That is not what I said.

My mistake, then.

it's estimated they contain enough usable oil to last the US at our present rate of increase in consumption for a couple hundred years.

I think that would have made the financial press. Can you point me to press releases from the relevant oil companies? That could be worth investing in. There were reports this year of a major find off the US coast, but not of that magnitude; the amounts you mention would dwarf Saudi Arabia.

I did have some info bookmarked, when I find it I'll post it. It has made financial news. For instance look at drill rig production, mud boat production, and the shortage of crews in the gulf region.

CO is enjoying a major oil field boom right now. People with degrees are quitting their jobs to drive water trucks in the oil fields.

[big bear]

Big Bear,
When the coyote died, I went through a period of introspection.
That " feeling" came over me, and it has not left me yet.
There IS something in the air, and I can not put my finger on it.

Thank you,very much.

[KWK]

I'm all for Nukes.

I am as well, but unfortunately, the greenies have crippled this industry. It's not too late, but it will require a rapid change of course.

The problem with the current nuclear industry is that the fuel "cycle" used wastes some 98% of the raw fuel. Worse, the raw fuel used, natural uranium, is not terribly abundant. For nuclear to be part of a long term solution, a breeder cycle is required, one which will allow the abundant supplies of thorium to be utilized. Such fuel cycles should be good for centuries.

The U.S. lead the world in this field, but the fools in Washington, spurred by the Democrats, cut all research into this field more than two decades ago. As a result, no where in the world is there a proven nuclear fuel cycle of the type needed. The Bush administration has pushed research into this field again, but the Democrats are resisting.

it's still a world market and the cost will move with the market

The Europeans strive to keep many world markets from hitting home. Had the U.S. guaranteed oil reserves, we might take local oil off the world market. It would, though, be a very dangerous strategy, for the U.S. is now dependent on many metals not readily available within the U.S., inviting retaliation.

It has made financial news. For instance look at drill rig production, mud boat production, and the shortage of crews in the gulf region.

I think we've been talking about the same find. It was deep, and it was tentative. However, I thought the amount in question was on the order of Saudi Arabia's, not multiple times it.

Except for deep off shore platforms, the U.S. is the world leader in oil exploration technologies. I'm sure the industry is booming, but I doubt most of it is being deployed inside the U.S. If they're driving water trucks in CO, that's a sign the fields there aren't especially productive. The high price of oil has made economical many pricey ways of pushing out more of the stuff.

[Grizz]

We get most of our foreign oil from mexico and canada, we get a small percentage of jihad oil.

Our biggest problem, besides the non-existent nuke development, is the lack of refining capacity in America, again because if the idiotarians.

America could be energy independent with supplies on hand if we could get around the idiot naysayers and just do it.

The greatest nation on earth is shackled and manacled by the enemies within.

But I am not hopeless because my citizenship is in heaven...

Grizz

[AmBraCol]

The greatest nation on earth is shackled and manacled by the enemies within.

But I am not hopeless because my citizenship is in heaven...

Grizz

Excellent point, Grizz. I salute you, fellow countryman.

[Bluehawk]

Just curious ??? Something that has been bugging me for a few years now .
Daily I watch the weather channel and local weather reports .
I see things like " We may set a new record for high temperatures today . It may break the record set on( IM being hypothetical here ) (say ) this date in June of 1898 or this date In May of 1921 etc etc.
I hear this ALL THE TIME IN 1898 were the farmers all using tractors ? were there as many cars on the road ? were they manufacturing plastics and other polutants then ?
I realize these may be isolated incidents and facts . I realize that these are not conclusive . I DO hear these things daily and not just on issues or WARMER temperatures but on cold record setting also .
To me its just another example of VARIED WEATHER CONDITOINS
that someone or some groups are exploiting to make political issues and money from a problem that has been blown WAY out of proportion.
Just some of my thoughts, and just one example

[sore shoulder]

[ If they're driving water trucks in CO, that's a sign the fields there aren't especially productive. The high price of oil has made economical many pricey ways of pushing out more of the stuff.

Or maybe it just means they are using a lot of water incidental to the drilling process.

[Blackhawk]

I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.



Johnny

[Jason_W]

I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.



Johnny

I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.

The biggest problem we are likely to deal with is there are X amount of people, and Y amount of resources when X>Y, we're in for a world of hurt.

Either we control our numbers, or nature will do it for us. Us doing it voluntarily will be a lot gentler than Nature's methods.

[Blackhawk]

I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.



Johnny

I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.

You never know!?

The biggest problem we are likely to deal with is there are X amount of people, and Y amount of resources when X>Y, we're in for a world of hurt.

Either we control our numbers, or nature will do it for us. Us doing it voluntarily will be a lot gentler than Nature's methods.

I agree but I don't think us doing controlling numbers of anything is really likely.

Johnny

[/quote]

[Jason_W]

I caught the tail end of a show that was on the other day about the world ending from the sun expanding. A theory scientist came up with a way to avoid this is to use a large asteroid and swing it around the earth and create an orbital pull that will put us on a new axis around the sun. So I don't really see the big deal in the whole global warming thing anyway. We'll just move if the sun becomes a problem.



Johnny

I'm pretty certain we don't have to worry about the sun expanding for another few billion years.

You never know!?

The biggest problem we are likely to deal with is there are X amount of people, and Y amount of resources when X>Y, we're in for a world of hurt.

Either we control our numbers, or nature will do it for us. Us doing it voluntarily will be a lot gentler than Nature's methods.

I agree but I don't think us doing controlling numbers of anything is really likely.

Johnny

[/quote]

Forced control won't work. People get resentful. However, education and offering incentives for having fewer children and consuming less in general might be helpful, particularly in third world nations where overpopulation is already a huge problem.

[KWK]

All the industrialized countries have birth rates below the level needed to sustain populations. It seems people get lazy when they are wealthy.

If the poor countries grow too fast, nature will take its ugly course and deal with it. It's not clear they will voluntarily cut their birth rates in time, but I think they will.

[Mokwaw]

Population control...??? look at China....severe penalties for having more than 1 child................

[Peter M. Eick]

Minor comment on the "there is 200 more years of oil" from a page back.

So, working in the oil industry, and working in the exploration side of it, I have to ask the question. If we could get that more oil out of the ground, why would we not do it unless we are held back by the greenies and the government? At $120 a barrel, we have to go for it.

I just wanted to point out that that majors have been publishing their production and quarterly reports. I find it interesting that most of the companies (mine included) did not increase production and actually had it decline. EM was down I believe 6%. This is in spite of massive increases in spending on exploration.


No, I have to say that oil prices will fluctuate a bit up or down, but demand is outstripping supply and there is not much we can do about it.

[Kismet]

No, I have to say that oil prices will fluctuate a bit up or down, but demand is outstripping supply and there is not much we can do about it.

Not to mention that now that we have shown we will pay for it, it is exceedingly unlikely that the price will ever come down much!

Michael in NH

[Tycer]

... What we need is more Nukes. And Fast.

I'm all for Nukes. Look at the French, they're 80+% nuclear ... and they did it without surrendering to anyone along the way.

I hate that all the French nuclear waste comes through my state.

[arjunky]

My apologies to that site's owner. The most interesting fact they note is that the US output per well is tiny. Surely this indicates many (most?) of the existing fields are pretty well tapped out.

I've not read of any major new fields off the US. There was one in the news recently, but nothing more is being reported. The greenies may have temporarily halted production in a few spots, but nothing stops the oil companies from searching for more. They are quite aware of what the price of oil will become in a few decades, and that gives them every reason to look for more sources locally, even if they can't produce from them in the current political environment, for that environment will change once the price skyrockets. Still, they have little to show for their searches.

It is patently silly to suggesting someone who feels there are too many people on the plant go kill himself. Population can decline without such measures as war and suicide; indeed, it seems to be natural in the developed world.

If you're looking for a new oil field, check out the Bakken field in North Dakota. Last I heard it covers most of North Dakota and into Canada.
There just hasn't been a feasible way to retrieve it until lately. Too far down and until horizontal drilling became more advanced, not worth the trouble.
Come up to between Minot and Stanley and look for the new wells going up weekly.

Byron

[TomD]

"Not to mention that now that we have shown we will pay for it, it is exceedingly unlikely that the price will ever come down much!"

That could be true, but we have been down this path before and the price fell so hard and far the oil projects of the day were stranded for 20 years.

There are many ways to conserve huge amounts of oil but the reality is people just want to bitch about it rather than doing anything about it, like driving 55 mph (I'm totally opposed to speed limit reduction laws).

I was thinking the other day that the insurance industry is part of the problem. I own one vehicle, so it has to be a truck. For me to own another vehicle I have to pay a whole huge increase in licensing and insurance, which is just a stupid pricing model. I could be driving a tiny car when I just scoot out to the shops, but it costs me more money than I can save. Oh, and it could even be a boost for the car industry, short term (all they care about).

In the longer term, Ray Kurzweil, who has been right before, says energy is now an information technology and solar energy efficiency will now increase in accordance with the rate of chip processing power, as do all information technologies. He claims there is 10,000 times the required solar energy for current replacement needs, so basically our energy future is a certainty. If that happens, (WTFDIK) you will be able to buy arabs (and people in Fort Mcmurray) for 100 bucks a barrel.

[Tycer]

Minor comment on the "there is 200 more years of oil" from a page back.

So, working in the oil industry, and working in the exploration side of it, I have to ask the question. If we could get that more oil out of the ground, why would we not do it unless we are held back by the greenies and the government? At $120 a barrel, we have to go for it.

No, I have to say that oil prices will fluctuate a bit up or down, but demand is outstripping supply and there is not much we can do about it.

The oil may be there, but releasing it would be bad business for the powers that be. We Americans must be reigned in a little, and what better way than to control our energy and create a crisis.

I live in a very liberal town and I've heard people screaming for the government to fix this - to save us from the evil oil companies - please socialize oil for us, and health care, and and and..... Socialism can work can't it? Barak save us! I heard one girl say she would love it if he would just make all her life decisions for her. She was sincere.

Lindsey Williams may be spot on.

I'm gonna go puke now.

[Peter M. Eick]

Sorry, business does not work that way. Big oil companies like the one I work for in it for the MONEY!.

Unless there is a political reason an area is shut down, the greenies won't let us in, or we can't make money at it, we will do our dangdest to get that oil up out of the ground and sell it. That is how we make money.

Remember, the shareholder is king and if we don't keep the shareholder and the analyst happy then they whack your stock price big time. Just miss you profits or production a quarter and you stock price drops a few bucks.

Trust me when I say we in the industry watch the stock price, oil price and production reports daily if not hourly. We are all driven by our metrics and our company profit objectives. I keep a graph of it running on my screen at the office or in the field constantly. It is the heartbeat of the industry.

When I listen to folks saying that the government can fix the oil companies and the problems, I just laugh. Name something that government intervention fixed.

Now lets just say the government really wants to fix the problem. Well we could allow drilling in ANWR, Offshore California, Offshore Florida, up the east Coast, down the West Coast, in the national forests, in the national parks, and a whole bunch of other places that are currently off limits. They could stop a bunch of the exclusions like the sage grouse limits and searching for black footed ferrets in states that they have not been seen since the 30's. I could go on and on and on about the problems of exploration in the US vs. internationally.