Global Warming?

[turnkey4099]

Oil is a finite resource, I learned in 1964, from a textbook written in 1960, that we had 14 years of oil left in the world! What have we been using since 1974? :laughing:

So you think that oil is a limitless resource? Very odd that.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Correct. As for th current price of fuel, a large part of it is due to speculators. Refinery fire? Price rises before the fire department even gets on scene.

Harry K

 

[madmax12]

What's the thread's opinion of this meteorologist's view?

Joe Bastardi Discusses 2012 Weather & Hurricanes on Bloomberg

Bastardi: Sandy a Storm That Was Long Overdue

http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/joe-bastardi-calls-manmade-co2-global-warming-an-obvious-fraud/

 

[TCJatko]

If finite is the case, it's still a long time from now. All I see is there is more and more showing up every day. I don't like the idea that energy has to be so expensive before new technology is developed. Flood the earth with oil and bring gas prices down at the pumps to $1.00 a gallon or less. That would put more money in people's pockets and the economy than anything else. How much could food prices come down if diesel was 80 cents a gallon. $1375.00 on heating oil for the season instead of $5500.00. That's real money. How many homes, businesses, schools, and governments could save just on heating fuel alone.
Everything will be booming. Then pay down the debt, fund research for new technology, get the space program back up and running, etc. etc. Use oil to do it. Use oil to save the pensions, use oil to repair roads and bridges, and use oil to make new ball fields etc. etc. Use oil to make itself cleaner.

I could see every house in the future having its own safe power plant or something, just like now we have water heaters and furnaces. You have this little box in the corner that runs everything. No more power lines. You need money to do this. Use oil to develop it. Not oil to run it.

But you can't do all this if no one has any money. No one has any extra spending money - from families and friends, to cities and towns, to the federal government. FREE THE OIL. Use the natural resource of the world to save the world.
But only for ten years. After ten years oil prices have to go back up, so it gives us ten years with lots of money to figure it out.

Not purposely raise the cost of energy, drain any extra money people have, make them live with less for something we may not even have any say in the outcome. Trying to develop new ideas without any money is the hard way to do it. Get the economy booming first, and use cheap energy to get there. We need another industrial revolution - not go back to the 17th century before oil. Use oil to get us back in the black and then to the green. We need an OIL revolution. I know you guys will chop this up with many reason why it can't happen and shouldn't . If I were smarter like you guys I probably would not have written it. Spending $20.00 a week on gas instead of $100.00 (that is just one person) a week would go a long way for everyone. What does the bankrupt state of California spend on fuel every year? What does the US government spend? Everyone will benefit all the way around. Just seems to me oil is the best way out of this mess right now. Then figure out how to get rid of it. Probably could do it in less than ten years.

Agree with MadMax. Sheer lunacy, this.

 

[TCJatko]

It is not only that. There is also cheap oil and expensive oil. Cheap oil is alredy gone. Now we are in expensive oil. I would be very surprised if it lasts next 30 years. Then we will be in very expensive oil and gas for that matter. Many off shore rigs drill for oil or gas in depths of 3000 ft or more. That is very expensive and difficult task. Why they are doing it? Because the easy to get (cheap) oil is gone. How do I know? I do contract work there.

Why drill in deep water? Because "environmentalists" will not permit drilling shallower waters. See Gulf Oil Spill.

 

[madmax12]

So you think that oil is a limitless resource? Very odd that. Harry K

Respectfully, your rebuttal is no less so.

 

[skspurling]

EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant. Liberal ignorant Moronic Koolaid drinkers will soon pass a law to forbid creatures and humans to EXHALE.
There is no credible evidence that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. The costs to regulate emissions will be staggering, and all for nought. There will be no demonstrable benefit. All pain and no gain.
I think if we eliminate Liberals we can save the planet much quicker

LIBERALISM is a disease in which you feel an uncontrollable urge to STEAL what someone has worked for and give it to someone who WON'T WORK!

The thing that gets me is that when I ask about how, they show me 2 graphs. Well, that's not proof. That's coincidence. Proof would be to reproduce the behavior in an atmospheric chamber, or show a known behavior of CO2 could additively create the observed response. Social science and stuff like that has ruined science. Why don't we just ask how mother earth feels. We already know she has a fever.

 

[EE_Bota]

Correct. As for th current price of fuel, a large part of it is due to speculators. Refinery fire? Price rises before the fire department even gets on scene.

Harry K

When I burn my skin, I feel pain long before a blister forms, swells, and then breaks. Prices are part of the economy's nervous system, and they convey the need for more supply and helpful conservation in a timely fashion because it takes time for replacement supply to ramp up. If a refinery fire were completely without consequence, the price would not rise to signal the need and the opportunity.

 

[EE_Bota]

What's the thread's opinion of this meteorologist's view?

Joe Bastardi Discusses 2012 Weather & Hurricanes on Bloomberg

Bastardi: Sandy a Storm That Was Long Overdue

Joe Bastardi Calls Manmade CO2 Global Warming “An Obvious Fraud”

Previously, his message was not well received, so he was stoned.

 

[toppop52]

See post 3035.

I spent 2 years (actually 20 months) working for Esso/Enco/Exxon in the early 70's in Benicia, CA when I first got my degree and after Vietnam. My job? Reviewing geologic studies of North American reserves, shallow reserves, deep reserves and alternate reserves (shale, sands, etc...). So unless you can enlighten me in some way as to what you know that I don't...

 

[RobertBrown]

What's the thread's opinion of this meteorologist's view?

The threads opinion will vary.....greatly.
I had a hard time paying attention to what he said on the first 2 links (videos) as every time he opened his mouth I was distracted and began thinking of dental procedures. You would think a guy that is going to be on camera and has those credentials would spend a few K on his teeth, apparently Weatherbell Analytics doesn't have a dental plan.
What I could listen to, left me no opinion really. I don't see where Mr Bastardi's comments had anything to do with this thread.
The last link or the article is informative but leaves me to wonder if Mr. Bastardi has grown tired of meteorology and would like to branch out to politics.
If you look at the source of his info and graphs you'll come back to this organization

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

sooo...What's your point?

 

[mistermcgoo]

The threads opinion will vary.....greatly.
I had a hard time paying attention to what he said on the first 2 links (videos) as every time he opened his mouth I was distracted and began thinking of dental procedures. You would think a guy that is going to be on camera and has those credentials would spend a few K on his teeth, apparently Weatherbell Analytics doesn't have a dental plan.
What I could listen to, left me no opinion really. I don't see where Mr Bastardi's comments had anything to do with this thread.
The last link or the article is informative but leaves me to wonder if Mr. Bastardi has grown tired of meteorology and would like to branch out to politics.
If you look at the source of his info and graphs you'll come back to this organization sooo...What's your point?

Actually Bastardi is pointing out how politicized meteorology has become.

What makes you think Met O is to be trusted? Is it ok that data is manipulated for political purposes?

What relevance does the link to Met O have with respect to Bastardi's articles?

 

[madmax12]

The threads opinion will vary.....greatly.
I had a hard time paying attention to what he said on the first 2 links (videos) as every time he opened his mouth I was distracted and began thinking of dental procedures. You would think a guy that is going to be on camera and has those credentials would spend a few K on his teeth, apparently Weatherbell Analytics doesn't have a dental plan.
What I could listen to, left me no opinion really. I don't see where Mr Bastardi's comments had anything to do with this thread.
The last link or the article is informative but leaves me to wonder if Mr. Bastardi has grown tired of meteorology and would like to branch out to politics.
If you look at the source of his info and graphs you'll come back to this organization sooo...What's your point?

I didn't notice his teeth. Looks are a high priority to you in meteorologists?

He's in the climate science field. He has a different view than the politically correct one. The going argument in this thread is that all science thinks one way. This gentleman is an example of that assertion being false.

I suppose he has a political opinion on it, due to the fact that climate science is presently tossed around in everyday politics, as a pending crisis necessitating new political and economic policy...resulting in new laws.

Climate change progressives are determined to make this a political issue. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy is a recent example. The links I posted dealt with that most recent event. First post was before, second was after. Third was his overall perspective.

I believe it was perfectly relevant.

 

[TCJatko]

Of course Bastardi was relevant. He just didn't sing the right song, so must be disparaged and "denied". Still the same leftist tactics; if the message doesn't fit your template, destroy the messenger.

 

[turnkey4099]

When I burn my skin, I feel pain long before a blister forms, swells, and then breaks. Prices are part of the economy's nervous system, and they convey the need for more supply and helpful conservation in a timely fashion because it takes time for replacement supply to ramp up. If a refinery fire were completely without consequence, the price would not rise to signal the need and the opportunity.

So you think that the speculators have no effect on prices?

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Respectfully, your rebuttal is no less so.

So enlighten us all. Where do you think oil is coming from to replace what we are using?

You apparently per y our posts think that oil is a limitless resource. Care to try to answer again but this time stick to the point?

Is oil limitless or not?

Harry K

 

[EE_Bota]

So you think that the speculators have no effect on prices?

Harry K

That was not stated nor was it implied anywhere in my post.

 

[madmax12]

So enlighten us all. Where do you think oil is coming from to replace what we are using?

You apparently per y our posts think that oil is a limitless resource. Care to try to answer again but this time stick to the point?

Is oil limitless or not?

Harry K

I believe the links indicated that it is inconclusive. I followed the links with a hypothetical notion... If it were limitless, would that not be an economical tax dream for the progressive mind?

 

[madmax12]

I find it very interesting that the climate change believers, in this thread, can barely understand the opposition posts... Yet we are to believe that they have expertly reviewed all of the facts and figures in the climate change debate.

 

[Johnp33]

The amazing thing is that 12 years ago the republicans were all for climate change and their idea of carbon credits then the Koch brothers gave them a bunch of money, their opinion changed.
The same ad agency that was pedaling the tobaco industries BS is now in the climate change deniers business.