Global warming; facts getting in the way of progress.

[elganned]

You're suggesting that Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler espoused phony presumptions and actively suppressed non-supportive evidence?

[dfunkycity]

diehard, they have. unfortunately, they get overwhelmed by mindless, factless two-line posts from various looney right ideologues who never let a fact or rational argument get in the way of their unwavering allegiance to discredited ideas.

the argument goes

Q: IF anthropomorphic global warming isn't real, but we act as if it is, what is the end result?
A: Cleaner air, greater efficiency, greater self-sufficiency

or

Q: IF AGW is real, and we act as if it is not, what is the end result?
A: Catastrophe of unprecedented dimension

what is the rational thing to do?

The rational ting to do is just accept the global warming hoax coming from the lefties as fact and then let them stick it to us monetarily without the vaseline while Fat Bore rides to the corner grocery in his private jet to purchase all the styrofoam , plastic tap water bottles [[another scam) and goes back home to where he gleefully continues to waste more fossil fuels than a small American town.

Yep, I want my utilities to be more expensive. $125 a month is not enough for me to pay the liberal syndicate.

People we must all listen to the Messiah and gladly hand him over our money without question.

After all, he is the savior.

[dfunkycity]

3WC...PLEASE participate more frequently, your insight is most welcome and needed.

NO CC! Don't encourage people to tell the truth about the great liberal scam of the century. The Messiah and his syndicate may not "make you" if you buck their trends of raping the populace.

[dfunkycity]

Isn't Bats adorable? He thinks that since he posted a link [[which may be a sign of hell freezing over, come to think of it) and insulted all those darn libs, the whole matter must be settled.
I'll alert the scientific community. Why bother with all that research when they could just ask Bats what he thinks?

problem is , all the research is bogus and fabricated all for Al Bore to make a buck

[elganned]

I didn't know you were such an expert in the field, dfunkTcity.
Pray tell us all where you got your Earth Sciences and Climatology degrees so we can send your alma mater a check in appreciation for your saving us from having to listen to any of those other bothersome scientists.

[3WC]

Eleganned: No problem. Good question.

I'm not extrapolating anything based only on AK and MI. I used AK as an example because other posters focus on AK and polar bears all the time.

I don't think any data can be apllied "globally." Weather tends to be local with many climate changes going on all the time throughout the world. Glaciation is and has been fluctuating for eons. Deserts come and go and have been doing that for eons.

Keep in mind that man has kept accurate [[or semi-accurate in the early years) weather records for only about 400 yers. The records are fairly good in some or many areas or completely lacking in others. It's true that we can obtain ice cores from the poles which arguably provide limited data, for a very small area, going back centuries. The scientific community [[a community of geologists and climatologists) has differng views of some of the results.

To date, the U.N. studies are very narrow "concensuses." A concensus can be 51% to 49%. And there were an equal number of non-scientists in the most recent U/N. study as there were scientists as I recall. Based on that we're [[some of us) are willing to initiate trillion dollar changes to our, and the world's economies.

We have very limited - almost non-existent - data on climate going back very many years, especially in terms of geologic time.

[[In my business, oil ane gas exploration and production in N. TX, one acquires a very good sense of geologic time. We're playing around down there in a world that existed over 600 million years ago. We drill wells with up to seven pay zones down to 4500 feet. A very prolific producing zone, for example, is the Gunsight Sand at about 1800 feet deep. 200 million years ago, the Gunsight, which is a pre-historic [[for lack of a better word) river, was on the surface. The whole area of N. TX [[and TX and new Mexico etc) was a deltaic environment not unlike the present Mississippi delta. The rivers and swamps were covered over with layers and layers of rock and sand over millions of years. The porous sand in the Gunsight acts as a trap for migrating oil. Our geologist can, by plotting subsurface data from other wells in the area, select a possible place to drill. In one case about 15 years ago, as a result of several wells we had drilled, he selected a spot which he believed would drill into a point bar [[thick sand at a bend in the river) and he was right. We got a 180 bbl/day well which returned our entire investment in 23 days and is still producing 2 or 3 bbl/day, quite profitable at these prices. The question is, what covered up those rivers. One thing is the erosion of the Ouchita Mountains, a Rocky Mountain size chain running E and W from Arkansas though OK and to the west. The mountains weathered and eroded and the whole area is now basiclly flat, flat land sith some ramining remnant rolling hills up around Lawton, OK. My point is that there there were monumental geologic changes over 600 million years [[and far beyond that) and many if not most were the result of weathering and climate change. We are ridiculously arrogant to believe that with the very limited - almost non-existent - long term weather data that we have we now conclude that a degree or two in climate change is due to man's conduct.)

[Ray1936]

For the sake of discussion.

Assume that there is some truth to global warming.

Now then. What GOOD can come from it?

Funny I 've never seen anyone explore that angle.

[Diehard]

Eleganned: No problem. Good question.

I'm not extrapolating anything based only on AK and MI. I used AK as an example because other posters focus on AK and polar bears all the time.

I don't think any data can be apllied "globally." Weather tends to be local with many climate changes going on all the time throughout the world. Glaciation is and has been fluctuating for eons. Deserts come and go and have been doing that for eons.

Keep in mind that man has kept accurate [[or semi-accurate in the early years) weather records for only about 400 yers. The records are fairly good in some or many areas or completely lacking in others. It's true that we can obtain ice cores from the poles which arguably provide limited data, for a very small area, going back centuries. The scientific community [[a community of geologists and climatologists) has differng views of some of the results.

To date, the U.N. studies are very narrow "concensuses." A concensus can be 51% to 49%. And there were an equal number of non-scientists in the most recent U/N. study as there were scientists as I recall. Based on that we're [[some of us) are willing to initiate trillion dollar changes to our, and the world's economies.

We have very limited - almost non-existent - data on climate going back very many years, especially in terms of geologic time.

[[In my business, oil ane gas exploration and production in N. TX, one acquires a very good sense of geologic time. We're playing around down there in a world that existed over 600 million years ago. We drill wells with up to seven pay zones down to 4500 feet. A very prolific producing zone, for example, is the Gunsight Sand at about 1800 feet deep. 200 million years ago, the Gunsight, which is a pre-historic [[for lack of a better word) river, was on the surface. The whole area of N. TX [[and TX and new Mexico etc) was a deltaic environment not unlike the present Mississippi delta. The rivers and swamps were covered over with layers and layers of rock and sand over millions of years. The porous sand in the Gunsight acts as a trap for migrating oil. Our geologist can, by plotting subsurface data from other wells in the area, select a possible place to drill. In one case about 15 years ago, as a result of several wells we had drilled, he selected a spot which he believed would drill into a point bar [[thick sand at a bend in the river) and he was right. We got a 180 bbl/day well which returned our entire investment in 23 days and is still producing 2 or 3 bbl/day, quite profitable at these prices. The question is, what covered up those rivers. One thing is the erosion of the Ouchita Mountains, a Rocky Mountain size chain running E and W from Arkansas though OK and to the west. The mountains weathered and eroded and the whole area is now basiclly flat, flat land sith some ramining remnant rolling hills up around Lawton, OK. My point is that there there were monumental geologic changes over 600 million years [[and far beyond that) and many if not most were the result of weathering and climate change. We are ridiculously arrogant to believe that with the very limited - almost non-existent - long term weather data that we have we now conclude that a degree or two in climate change is due to man's conduct.)

While I don't dispute any of the geological info you've put forth, is it possible that working for the oil industry might have influenced your opinion a bit? Not trying to start a fight, just throwing that out there.

[Diehard]

For the sake of discussion.

Assume that there is some truth to global warming.

Now then. What GOOD can come from it?

Funny I 've never seen anyone explore that angle.

From an extremely simplistic point of view, a warmer winter in Michigan would be nice.

[ccbatson]

Warming is real...natural, not manmade, and most often beneficial.

BTW, anyone else notice the conspicuous absence of coverage of this huge scandal on all but conservative talk radio and Fox news?

[dfunkycity]

Well now why on earth would the liberal mainstream media , the messiah and his syndicate and all their sponsors want to advertise the fact that their cash cow was manufactured in order to rape the public?

[ccbatson]

Excellent point and question...however, facing extinction by loss of viewers because of loss of credibility might, just might be reversible to some extent if they fess up and start doing their job.

[3WC]

Diehard: Good question. Actually, our 50 year lack of a coherent energy policy, and especially the mania associated with global warming, has been very good for me economically.

When Al Gore [[I abhor him by the way - a true charlatan in my opinion) ran for President, I begged our Association, The TX Alliance of Energy Producers, to put all of our PAC money behind Gore. The Board looked at me in disbelief. My view was, and is, that it is in the best interests of the 1000s of small independent oil producers like me who produce over 60% of U.S. oil) to do our best to stop drilling in ANWR and offshore, and prevent the development of our trillion bbls of shale oil, kerogen. My rationale is that the last thing we producers need is more oil coming onto the market, from any source. Selfish of me, and bad for the country, but we all tend to vote our pocketbooks. The totally misplaced emphasis on ethanol, wind generation and other types of very expensive alternative energy sources does nothing but slow the exploitation of our undiscovered oil and gas resources, and frankly, I laugh all the way to the bank.

And, to answer Ray's question, much good will come from global warming. It depends on whose ox is being gored. [[I have never said I don't believe that there is some short term temperature increases - warming - it's just a natural fluctuation and is not man-made. As I said before, we've been in a period of global warming in the U.S. and N. Europe for 12,000 years. Does anyone think that there will not be another ice age here, that the milleniums old cycle of warming/cooling will just stop?

When I started in the oil business in 1963 I recall that Mobil drilled a well on Baffin Island, well above the Arctic Circle. It was reported that the well flowed on choke at the rate of 15,000 bbls/day. A monster. It was plugged and abandoned as there was no way to get out the oil. An investment in science. According to the world oil press, there are numerous geologic sedimentary basins above the arctic circle which probably hold vast amounts of oil. As the polar cap melts, large lanes of navigable water are already becoming ice free several months a year which will provide access to those potential oil fields. If that occures, it will guaranty lower gas prices for years. Many think that's a good thing.

Utilities will thrive as more and more electricity will be used for air conditioning. So will those who provide the gas and coal to the utilities.

Real estate developers will grow rich rebuilding major cities inland as the oceans rise and swamp them in their current locations. New York City, Baltimore, Miami, San Fran etc. They'll have to be rebuilt; where will the people go otherwise?

As the oceans rise and their volume increases, many fisheries expert say that the volume of fish will increase as well. Lobster at $2/#.

Good times ahead, folks. Enjoy the ride.

[ccbatson]

3WC....are you outspoken about this in other venues? You should be...knowledgeable, experienced, and articulate...your voice is very much needed.

Thank you BTW.

[Ray1936]

Once again I agree with Bats. Is that giving me a bad reputation?

[Alfie1a]

"I have a question nobody ever seems to address in these global warming threads.
Obviously there's a dispute over whether global warming is really happening, and if it is, whether it's caused by human activity or is a natural occurrence.
Is there any dispute, however, over any of the following:
1. Global warming, if it is happening, is a bad thing and we should do what we can to stop it.
2. Climate science is complex and the data is compiled and studied over many years, so any flippant comment like "global warming is a hoax because it snowed today" should be dismissed.
3. Burning fossil fuels causes pollution.
4. The US buys much of its fossil fuels from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm.
5. The US borrows money from China to buy fossil fuels, adding to the national deficit.
Does anyone dispute any of this?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the agenda of the global warming deniers. Are they defending the status quo, and claiming that the "progress" referred to in the title of this thread is to keep doing what we've been doing for 100 years?"

1.Nothing can be done if its caused by the sun. [[If it is actually happening, which doesn't seem so.)
2.The complex data has been manipulated to reach the desired conclusions.
3.Can't dispute that.
4.Allow the tapping of resources here.
5.Same as #4.
Which side is the one with an agenda?
Seems to me this whole anthropogenic global warming thing has finally been exposed as a pack of lies, and rightfully so.

[barnesfoto]

Oh that settles it. So the melting of the polar ice caps, as well as much of the ice that covers the nation known as Greenland is just a natural phenomenon? And there's enough fossil fuels in the US and its' territories to supply all of our demand for fossil fuels?

If so, why have we been importing oil for all these years? And what are we going to do when rising prosperity in places like China and India cause more people to buy cars and the fossil fuels that operate them?

Just for perspective, it was only a few short years ago that some of the same people who are now assuring us that global warming is a hoax were assuring us that the Iraq War Fiasco would be paid for by the oil revenue that was going to be ours as soon as Saddam was captured...

I don't much care whether people think global warming is a hoax or not, if it is, let future generations accuse those of us who believe that there IS such a thing of being overly cautious and selfishly thinking of how our grandchildren's grandchildren will be affected.

It puzzles me that anyone would question why we need to develop alternative energy sources, or see it as a right/left issue. Can there be anything bad about a gradual phasing out of dependence on oppressive theocratic states such as Saudi Arabia or failed states such as Iraq?

[Gistok]

It's nice when politics is absent from a discussion... I learned a lot from this thread.

3WC, you mentioned that the freeing up of ice in the Canadian Arctic archipelago [[and Arctic Ocean) has implications for gas and oil exploration. But it also could be a boon for shipping to Asia.

Historically the search for a navigable "Northwest Passage" has been a dream for centuries among seafaring countries. It could be a boon for seasonal shipping between North America and Asia, similar to seasonal shipping on the Great Lakes. Of course this would have to depend on other weather conditions. If the weather there is anything like the weather in the southern oceans [[especially around "The Horn", "The Cape" and in the "Roaring Forties"), then it wouldn't exactly be great for navigation.

But then again, on the flip side we have to keep in perspective that the richest ocean marine feeding grounds are mainly in cold water.

Although one worries about species extinctions, it's something that has been going on since life first began on the planet. It's also interesting to note that most fossil fuels and fuel depostits are made up of the remains of extinct speicies.

[Diehard]

Diehard: Good question. Actually, our 50 year lack of a coherent energy policy, and especially the mania associated with global warming, has been very good for me economically.

At least you are upfront about the fact that money is your driving motivation.

When Al Gore [[I abhor him by the way - a true charlatan in my opinion)

Your, and the right-wing's, hatred of Al Gore is immaterial, but it does seem to turn a lot of people into pseudo-scientists. You are obviously well-versed in geology and how to get the oil out of the ground, but that's not the same thing as climate science. Unless you have studied climate science extensively [[and not just the studies the oil industry has paid for), you really have no room to call him a "charlatan." His work threatens your bank account, we get it. It doesn't mean he's right or wrong.

ran for President, I begged our Association, The TX Alliance of Energy Producers, to put all of our PAC money behind Gore. The Board looked at me in disbelief. My view was, and is, that it is in the best interests of the 1000s of small independent oil producers like me who produce over 60% of U.S. oil) to do our best to stop drilling in ANWR and offshore, and prevent the development of our trillion bbls of shale oil, kerogen. My rationale is that the last thing we producers need is more oil coming onto the market, from any source. Selfish of me, and bad for the country, but we all tend to vote our pocketbooks. The totally misplaced emphasis on ethanol, wind generation and other types of very expensive alternative energy sources does nothing but slow the exploitation of our undiscovered oil and gas resources, and frankly, I laugh all the way to the bank.

Again, with you, it's about your bank account, not about what's best for the world and for U.S. energy policy.

And, to answer Ray's question, much good will come from global warming. It depends on whose ox is being gored. [[I have never said I don't believe that there is some short term temperature increases - warming - it's just a natural fluctuation and is not man-made. As I said before, we've been in a period of global warming in the U.S. and N. Europe for 12,000 years. Does anyone think that there will not be another ice age here, that the milleniums old cycle of warming/cooling will just stop?

When I started in the oil business in 1963 I recall that Mobil drilled a well on Baffin Island, well above the Arctic Circle. It was reported that the well flowed on choke at the rate of 15,000 bbls/day. A monster. It was plugged and abandoned as there was no way to get out the oil. An investment in science. According to the world oil press, there are numerous geologic sedimentary basins above the arctic circle which probably hold vast amounts of oil. As the polar cap melts, large lanes of navigable water are already becoming ice free several months a year which will provide access to those potential oil fields. If that occures, it will guaranty lower gas prices for years. Many think that's a good thing.

Apparently you define "good" as "profitable." What's good for a few industries is not necessarily good for all of humanity.

Utilities will thrive as more and more electricity will be used for air conditioning. So will those who provide the gas and coal to the utilities.

You're cool with the pollution from all that gas and coal, and the fact that it will eventually run out, as long as somebody's making money?

Real estate developers will grow rich rebuilding major cities inland as the oceans rise and swamp them in their current locations. New York City, Baltimore, Miami, San Fran etc. They'll have to be rebuilt; where will the people go otherwise?
As the oceans rise and their volume increases, many fisheries expert say that the volume of fish will increase as well. Lobster at $2/#.

Good times ahead, folks. Enjoy the ride.

So, to sum up, you believe short-term profit for a few industries is "good," even at the cost of destroying the entire seaboard of the U.S. and other nations and dramatically altering the oceanic ecosystem?
That's cool. You're approaching it as a capitalist, and at least you're upfront about it. That's better than the idiotic "let's bash the stupid libs" approach a lot of the wingnuts here are fond of.

[Diehard]

[quote=Alfie1a;93542]"I have a question nobody ever seems to address in these global warming threads.
Obviously there's a dispute over whether global warming is really happening, and if it is, whether it's caused by human activity or is a natural occurrence.
Is there any dispute, however, over any of the following:
1. Global warming, if it is happening, is a bad thing and we should do what we can to stop it.
2. Climate science is complex and the data is compiled and studied over many years, so any flippant comment like "global warming is a hoax because it snowed today" should be dismissed.
3. Burning fossil fuels causes pollution.
4. The US buys much of its fossil fuels from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm.
5. The US borrows money from China to buy fossil fuels, adding to the national deficit.
Does anyone dispute any of this?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the agenda of the global warming deniers. Are they defending the status quo, and claiming that the "progress" referred to in the title of this thread is to keep doing what we've been doing for 100 years?"

1.Nothing can be done if its caused by the sun. [[If it is actually happening, which doesn't seem so.)

And you know this for a fact how?

2.The complex data has been manipulated to reach the desired conclusions.

The hacked emails would appear to indicate that. But this isn't 100% of the science that's out there. The oil industry, on the other hand, has been manipulating the data for their own purposes for years, yet the right-wingers never question them.

3.Can't dispute that.

Are you also cool with the pollution and eventual depletion of fossil fuels?

4.Allow the tapping of resources here.
5.Same as #4.

They'll still run out eventually and destroy air quality. No problem with that?

Which side is the one with an agenda?

Both.

Seems to me this whole anthropogenic global warming thing has finally been exposed as a pack of lies, and rightfully so.

While the oil industry's "studies" are 100% truth. Right.
The answer's still out there, and finger-pointing and petty politics ain't gonna help us find it.

[elganned]

...4. The US buys much of its fossil fuels from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm.
...4.Allow the tapping of resources here.

You are aware that there are many oil industry analysts who believe we are approaching the "peak oil" point, if we haven't already passed it?

"Drill, baby, drill!"--at least in the case of oil--amounts to little more than trying to increase one's income by digging in the sofa cushions for loose change. There ain't that much oil left in North America, and what's here is difficult and expensive to get to.

Natural gas may prove to be our long-term stop-gap measure. It remains to be seen whether it can really produce. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[ccbatson]

Elganned...the peak oil argument is thoroughly debunked...of course, you must look outside of the liberal propaganda to be up to date on the facts.

[ziggyselbin]

I don't know whether there is global warming [[now called climate change) or not. What is troubling is what the late author Michael Crichton described as the " religion of global warming". There is certainly credible and valid points being made that go against the religion of climate change. Are you all open enough to accept that?

As for fossil fuels they are all we have right now. And economically there is absolutely nothing that comes close as a viable form of energy.

[ccbatson]

Read Chris Horner's books [[2) on the subject. The culture of corruption is spelled out in detail.

[Diehard]

I don't know whether there is global warming [[now called climate change) or not. What is troubling is what the late author Michael Crichton described as the " religion of global warming". There is certainly credible and valid points being made that go against the religion of climate change. Are you all open enough to accept that?

While there are some global warming believers who are "religious" about it, at least they're trying to conserve, live cleaner lives and change things for the better. The deniers are the ones with the closed minds here, and it's mainly because they're bitter, greedy right-wing curmudgeons who hate Al Gore, not because they know more than anyone else.
I don't think any of us here have the answers, which is why the research continues.

As for fossil fuels they are all we have right now. And economically there is absolutely nothing that comes close as a viable form of energy.

They're all our infrastructure has been set up for, not all we have. No alternative form comes close until we actually TRY to use it. We'll have to eventually; as oil runs out and get prohibitively expensive, the alternative sources will become more and more economically viable. By then, the planet might be wrecked, or it might not be. The global warming deniers want to find out the hard way.