Bad logic on climate deal

it's certainly indicative of something illogical when people refuse belief in creationism, preferring evolution, but are seemingly incapable of understanding the natural breakdown and permutation of solid substances over time from one compound in to another.
 
Onceler said:
I was implying that, within the context of man's time on earth & likely time on earth, it is most definitely a finite resource.
Click to expand...

this earth has been around for over 4 billion years. I seriously doubt that we're going to outlive it or deplete it of every drop of oil. especially considering that we've only begun to really scratch 'the surface' of oil pockets around the globe.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this earth has been around for over 4 billion years. I seriously doubt that we're going to outlive it or deplete it of every drop of oil. especially considering that we've only begun to really scratch 'the surface' of oil pockets around the globe.
Click to expand...

Factoring in increases for population & consumption, most estimates have us running out of oil - for use on a mass scale - by the end of the century. Some have it at mid-century, which is probably wrong, but clearly, we're going to have a problem eventually....
 
Onceler said:
Factoring in increases for population & consumption, most estimates have us running out of oil - for use on a mass scale - by the end of the century. Some have it at mid-century, which is probably wrong, but clearly, we're going to have a problem eventually....
Click to expand...

Are those the estimates by the same climate liar scientists? yep.
 
Topspin said:
Hillary promised 100billion to poor countries to go along with the program.
I'm shocked nobody's pissed about this in the middle of the worse recession in our lives.
Click to expand...
LOL so much crap... so little time.

We can always point to Hillary's droppings later.
there isn't an intelligent person in america that didn't shake their head on that one.
 
lorax is a peak oil guy.
simple as that.

It's not like we ever get better at finding oil.
And it's not like it would be in the interests of oil companies to keep the narrative claiming there's a shortage of their product.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Im that fucking indian crying my eyes out over the nihilists in charge of our government.
Click to expand...
CryingIndian.jpg
 
tinfoil said:
lorax is a peak oil guy.
simple as that.

It's not like we ever get better at finding oil.
And it's not like it would be in the interests of oil companies to keep the narrative claiming there's a shortage of their product.
Click to expand...

So you agree with AHZ?

Oil is an infinite resource?
 
Onceler said:
For the sake of this thread, I want to set aside AGW. Let's accept that AGW is real, and go even further, and accept that man is pretty much the sole cause of global warming.

What is the point of the climate deal, in that case? They are talking about a reduction in emissions which will result in nothing more than a token, symbolic reduction in atmospheric CO2. It will be negligible, by any scientific measurement you could use, and probably wouldn't even amount to a reduction with population increase.

Beyond that, if they accept their own rhetoric on climate change, they should understand that natural triggers kick in at a certain point anyway, adding to the output of greenhouse gases for the planet as a whole.

Even if AGW was real, the world would basically have to go cold turkey now to make any difference at all 100 years from now, and that ain't happening. It's certainly not happening in this climate deal.

Reducing carbon emissions is a noble goal, and - as most seem to agree on - accelerating the development of domestic renewables is something we should do anyway, for a variety of reasons. For all that they are putting into the current climate deal, however, it would be nice to hear them address what the thing would actually accomplish in real climate terms (that is, nothing)...
Click to expand...
I agree that what is coming out of the climate summit is less than useless whether human activity is having a long term global climate effect or not. I agree that it is essential to pursue alternate energy sources to reduce use of fossil petroleum.

I disagree that pursuing an unnecessarily expensive reduction in our carbon footprint is a noble goal. I disagree that it is proper to discuss what is coming out of the climate summit from the view of "let's ignore that AGW is a BS theory." There is plenty wrong with the claims that human activity is even a measurable contributing factor in global climate let alone the primary or only cause. I disagree, because the science is not nearly as "settled" as many continue to claim.

If we are going to spend billions of dollars here in the U.S., trillions world wide over the coming decades, we need to be doing so in a manner that will benefit us, not in useless, feel-good, politically correct measures like carbon sequestering. IF (and that is a fucking huge IF, in double bold block letters five miles high) the Earth is in a long term warming trend that will completely or mostly melt both polar caps, then we would be FAR better off spending our limited resources preparing for what that will mean to coastal cities, agriculture, urban water sources, etc. etc. etc.

OTOH, IF (Again in five mile high double bolded block print) the current ice melting trend results in abrupt changes that lead to an ice age, we again are far better off preparing for what that will mean to humanity instead of spending our time and resources hiding our carbon emissions. As has been pointed out, fossil oil is a limited resource. But alternate sources are a limited resource, also. Solar energy may be theoretically unlimited, but the materials with which we make the technology to convert solar flux into energy usable by our infrastructures is not unlimited.

There are also limited steps we can take to reduce use of oil that does not cripple, or at best severely hinder, the economy, not only ours but world wide. If we further waste resources burying carbon, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. If we ignore alternates which do not have the net effect of reducing carbon emissions but do have the net effect of reducing real pollutants, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Fact is ALL resources are limited. (With the exception of human thought.) With population pressures stretching every earth resource, its way past time we started using them more wisely, INCLUDING human thought. Do we spend our time and resources trying to shovel back the flood tide with teaspoons, or do we spend our time building levies that can handle the tidal forces? And just MAYBE, instead of spending huge amounts of money, time, and resources trying to support blaming human activity for Katrina, we need to start trying to find out which way the climate is actually going to swing so we know whether to build levies or snow fences. (if it actually swings at all - so far all we've seen is a minor burp in the grand scheme of global climate history)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top