Whether or not our interference is producing warmer temperatures is irrelevant. Oil is a finite resource, and most likely used by the earth for some intrinsic purpose. Drilling away all the oil in a deposit can lead to major earthquakes, and gigantic sink holes. Not to mention the fact that oil refineries pollute, oil spills are abundant, and oil producing countries hold us all hostage. All nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, and I don't see any ground war there. Some of you sound as though you got a hold of some Republican talking points and won't let go. The whole 'climate change is a conspiracy' argument is laughable. Tell it to the polar bears. Your electric bill will be untouched by the carbon cap and trade system. The corporations who pollute without any oversight are the ones who will pay, as they should. It should be part of the cost of manufacturing goods and services, since it costs us all to clean it up. There are regulations in place within the proposal that keep the electric companies from switching the cost to you. Scare tactics... Do you really believe there's no better way to produce energy than to rape the earth of a very rare substance, so that we can make millions of tiny explosions, dirty our air supply and potentially destroy our environment? Make no mistake, saving our environment isn't about saving the planet, it's about saving the humans. That should be sufficiently selfish enough for those of you with a 'who cares about the future' attitude.
jimnuggits, you have a little moan about some arguments being "laughable" Then you say: most likely used by the earth for some intrinsic purpose What purpose would that be? How about ZERO purpose. All nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, and I don't see any ground war there. The London bombers were from the UK. I don't see any ground war here either. I think those towo are fairly comical. Sorry.
There is actually a lot of new credible evidence to support theories that oil is a by product of the earth's core and seeps through the mantel and crust into the large underground pools. I heard a guy talking about it that an author of a book. He was on a credible talk radio program. It's know that there is more oil in the bottom of the ocean than there is on land. People have been saying we are going to run out for ages. It's just peculiar to me that while we are running out of oil, we are consuming more than we ever have in history, and also have the largest amount of reserves world wide than in history. The two just don't match up. I am not saying oil is a long term solution. But the idea of us 'running' out and it being a super rare thing on earth, only drives the price up. IF the people are lead believe that supplies are low, demand and cost will rise. But in reality we have more reserves than ever before so the price should be low, this isn't the case due the global warming hysteria, and "energy crisis". Let's get a better long term solution, but still use the oil we have freely.
If I wanted a summary of my own thoughts, I'd send away for the cliff notes. And if you'd ever check the news instead of playing Pokemon with your grandma, you'd realize there is more than one story out there right now that shows a causal link between removing most of the oil in a deposit and subsequent earthquakes. That's not zero purpose. Your next two comments make no sense, they are non sequiters. It's like saying 'the Titanic hit an iceburg and sank, but penguins hit iceburgs all the time and are fine, so iceburgs aren't dangerous.' Logic is comical when you don't have any.
I am can't remember the name of the guy or the book. I too that it was crazy. I listen to him for over an hour and had lots of evidence and research done by real scientists. The problem with a lot of the information out the is junk science, just like global warming it's biased and the research is internally funded, which again is a conflict of interest. Google it, i am sure you will find something. You don't seem like a person that wants to learn anything anyway, but one that already has everything figured out.
I don't know how scientists can claim experience from maybe 200 years research on something that it billions of years old.
It is difficult to point out what I am talking about if I don't quote it. I thought that was forum use 101. I might be wrong. You said the oil served a person. Not what effect it has if removed. The planet didn't decide to fell trees, compress them for a few million years...just so it could stave off earthquakes. Not the last time I checked anyway. I could be wrong (again). You seemed to be suggesting that we would be at war with Saudia Arabia because some bombers were from there. But arnt because of oil. Why would we go to war with a country when it was just the residents that did it? That's was what I was trying to say. P.S. I don't like Pokemon...and both my grans are 6 feet under.
I don't trust the words of any of these scientists. I don't need to. It's an easy equation, if you think about it. Oil comes from the ground, which means there is only x amount of it, ever. Took billions of years to create, a few seconds to use. Makes it hard for us to breathe,(unless you think smog is a left wing conspiracy too) and causes cancer. Wind is natural, unlimited and clean. The sun shines everyday, everywhere. These things are totally renewable, oil isn't. Damn the science, the 'politics' and the money. Clean and abundant or dirty and finite. No contest.
So far we haven't ran out of oil and continue to find a new spots. I doubt we will ever run out of oil, we will find a far superior product before then. But all in all oil is pretty efficient at what it does. I am all for American drilling if it means not spending money over seas. All in the mean time allowing technology to advance to create superior energy sources. I doubt any those breakthroughs will come from wind or solar though. More like nuclear or something to do with hydrogen...natural gas would be a good temporary fix too.
Oil is not efficient. About 10% of the power the explosion produces in your engine actually makes it down to turn the wheels. Nuclear is about as efficient as burning wood, and thousands of times more dangerous. Hydrogen looks good, but its still way off. The thing that pisses me off is that they've known the finite capabilities of petroleum for at least a half century, and are only now getting around to researching alternatives in earnest.
i would suggest reading some of Micheal Crichton's speeches on global warming. http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html it even has graphs.
i coulodnt even read all of these nonsence (and some well thoiught out) posts without replying so forgive me if someone has covered many of these points 1 global warming is a fact, right now in the oceans there is a massive rise in the population of jellyfish, including giant jellyfish over 4 feet across that are the most deadly creatures on ewarth this polopulation increase is directly related to global warming about 10 years back there was a 2 minute oir ,less report on the news (never mentioned again that i saw) about a tiny island country with a population under 300,000 that was preparing to abandonthe entire country due to global warming and rising sea leve;ls now as for co being toxic and co2 being harmful all you gotta do is look at tokyo the oxygen level in tokyo is nearly to the point where life cannot be sustained there much longer co2 is harmless in itself unless rthe co2 to oxygen ratio becomes too far to the co2 side that we sufficate .. too much co2 caN BE DEADLY AS CO BECAUSE IT IS A WASTE PRODUCT OF RESPIRATION TOO HIGH OF CONCENTRATIONS AND WE SUFFICATE now to that idiot that claims hed drive a gas guzzler no matter what safcrificing the future of all humanity for his own selfish desires to look and sound cool you are a moron! we are getting so close to peak oil that if we dont stop depending on fossil fuels for outrr cars we wont haVE CARS THAT MOVE.. U CAN SIT THERE WITH YOUR GAS GUZZLER WITH NO GAS TO GUZZLE GOOD FOR YOU ..ARENT U COOL HUH? its absolutely clear that we cannot go on driving petrolium fueled vehicles much longer we have known that6 for many years now and now we are at that desperate piint of realization that now is the time we must switch over or have it all crash down arrounbd us \ why do u think theres been such a push the last few years to edevelop new fuel cell technologies hybrids and alternatively fueled vehicles? why do u think so maNY CITY BUSES HAVE SWITCHED TO NATURAL GAS PROPANE OR OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUELS? PARTIALY BECAUSE OF EMISSIO0NS ODVIOSLY.. THE POLUTION ISSUE ALONE IS GETTING WORSEALL THE TIME BUT ALSO ITS BEEN CLEAR FOR YEARS THAT GAS AND DEISEL WONT SUSTAIN OURT NEEDS MUCH LONGER AT ALL (i gotta disable that damn caps lock key..hehe) electric cars are a very sensible way to go, b ut only if tyheyre recharging doesnt also depend on thje burning of fossil fuels i believe that a combo of solar with a waste veggie oil backup generator and breaking that generates converting mommentum back into power could bring us beyond 100 mpg of waste veggie oil that normaly costs businesses to dispose of (and produces very low emissions) in additio0n curreent solar cells only capture 1 spe4ctrum of light, new tech is being developped with multik layered cells that capture 6 spectrums therefore increasing output by 6 times that would absolutely be plenty to power even big rig trucks and trains (and airplanes) there just needs to be a sdhift in the funding for development
i dunno bout horses either dont they say the largest cause of global warming isant cars but cows? cow farets? i really suppoert the end of the meat industry too but thats another storty but a cart r has 200-300 horese power eachj if we replace every car with 200 horses thats a hell of alotta horse farts ..plus a hell of alotta food going into feeding thoswe horses instead ofd people solars the way to go
