Global Warming Question??????

#1. We wont run out of oil for many centuries.

#2. Human activity is not the sole source of global warming.

 

haven't you heard the latest news on global warming?....go to globalwarm.com

 

I never said global disaster, not that I don't think that will happen....what is your def. of disaster?? I think desertification/drought, flooding, insect-borne diseases, extinction of species unable to migrate to favorable habitats, are all disastrous!!

 

Oh great, you finally figured how to log in, did you? Or were they behind on their payments?

Many centuries is overstating it a bit. While we will always technically have oil, because it is located in near impossible areas to exploit, that which is economical to exploit is being depleted quite rapidly.

No, human activity is not the sole source, but is is the most significant contributing factor at the moment. Included in "human activity" should also be such things as forest fires, as many of the most severe forest fires can be attributed to overzealous fire surpression activities in the past.

 

I'm not sure how improving the quality of our air can be considered a risk. Or do you mean that spending "100s of billions [of dollars]" on the environment will put our economy at risk? Yeah, whatever. The fact of the matter is, we can either spend "100s of billions" now on preventative measures, or do the typically "western civilization" thing and spend 1000s of billions on trying to rectify problems once they have become all but impossible to ignore.

 

Hello i'm speading the word about Evolve. the festival is run on bio diesel. tons of works shops, and music of every type. 5 stages 48 hr of strait music the music never ends. here is some cool info about bio diesel. and a link to the evolve site.

Ref: http://www.biodieselsolutions.com/faq.asp#b1

www.evolvefestival.com

 

jiimaan:"Oh great, you finally figured how to log in, did you? Or were they behind on their payments?"

You were really hoping I was gone, werent you. The voice of reason is in da house! If you were truly a self-respecting consipracy theorist you would know that the big corporations (which presumably fund everyone who doesnt think like you) never run out of money.

jiimaan:"Many centuries is overstating it a bit. While we will always technically have oil, because it is located in near impossible areas to exploit, that which is economical to exploit is being depleted quite rapidly."

Sure, whatever. Some number of centuries. The amount ofoil that is economically attainable shifts every year as technology advances. If prices continue around 40$ a barrel, we'll soon be tapping oil reserves that were forsaken just a few decades ago.

jiimaan:"No, human activity is not the sole source, but is is the most significant contributing factor at the moment. Included in "human activity" should also be such things as forest fires, as many of the most severe forest fires can be attributed to overzealous fire surpression activities in the past."

Whether humans account for the majority or not is still open to debate. But suffice it to say that some global warming is absolutely unavoidable even if human greenhouse gas emissions stopped tommorow.

 

No, quite the opposite. I was very disappointed that you'd suddenly disappeared, as I find constantly disproving your outrageous and fallacious arguments quite entertaining.

As for that quip about corporations never running out of money: I never said that. I speculated that perhaps they had been behind in their payments, the most likely cause being your unsatisfactory performance.

No, it doesn't shift. It is a fairly well established fact that the availability of oil has declined steadily since the 1970s, and that new oil deposits are most often found in difficult to reach locations. New technology my rear--technology has its limits.

Well, no, it's not really open to debate--it's fairly well established that this is in fact the case.

Of course if all emissions were stopped today, there would still be global warming, because it will take many years for planet to return to a balanced state. Certainly you're not suggesting that since we've screwed things up, it makes no difference now, so we should just go on as we have been? That's nonsense (hence not surprising at all coming from you).

 

Sorry. Since you assume that people who disagree with you must be paid by industry, I mistakenly assumed that you also believed that corporate wealth was limitless.

And the Bureau of Mines said we were almost out of oil back in 1914. There are centuries of shale oil left, but it costs more to use it.

You dont get it. Part of global warming is completely independent of human activity, according the the global authority (IPCC) on the matter. The earth is not some sort of self-balancing machine. The earth is always in flux.

 

I've never assumed that people who disagree with me "must be paid by industry". I'm not sure where you've got this notion--oh, wait... I guess because I've made reference to this possibly being the case in regard to you, that must mean I do it to everyone else as well, right? That's pretty hair-brained, you know. The fact of the matter is, your stalwart support for theories, policies and practices that are pro-corporation, pro-GM, etc. etc. is presented in such a manner that it is difficult not to question whether there is some sort of financial incentive for saying what you do. I'm certainly not the only one that you've caused to consider this possibility.

I'm not sure what you believe you can accomplish by referring to something that Lomborg has brought to your attention. The fact that the Bureau of Mines claimed that "we were almost out of oil back in 1914" means NOTHING. You know that, or at least SHOULD. Since the 1970s there has been a decline in known oil deposits, and new oil deposits are found in increasingly difficult to access locations. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that at the current rate of consumption, that we will have oil for "many centuries". Still, regardless of how long it lasts, it is a non-renewable resource, which means that it will be depleted.

No, you evidently "don't get it". I'm very well aware that there are natural factors that contribute to the production of greenhouse gases, such as volcanoes, forest fires (although current problems with forest fires are largely due to human intervention), but the effects of these are always brought back into balance. This is an extremely slow process. On the other hand, there has been a marked increase in the levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, and this increase is the result of burning coal, automobile emissions, etc. I'm not sure why you are trying to downplay this, since the evidence is quite conclusive.

 

This yahoo group is for debate about global warming but there is only one member so the debate is not very heated lol.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eden_party/