Hello:

Apparently, the right wing believes (http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/) that oil is NOT a fossil fuel, that it's replenished in the center of the earth, and we'll NEVER run out. I suppose if you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you'd have to DENY that there's anything older.

Now, if it was JUST the wingnut WND, who would care if they're BONKERS??? But, if you live in North Carolina, and you just suffered TWO major leaks of POISON and HAZARDOUS material, you'd be VERY concerned that the guy in charge of cleaning it up (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/meet-mccrorys-top-environmental-official), ALSO BELIEVES the CRAP the WND is shoveling...

excon

WND will rot your brain. Scary to think someone believes the crap they spew. I guess it belongs in the "preaching to the choir" category.

Excuse me, but it is Nancy Pelosi that believes fossil fuels aren't fossil fuels.


I’m, I’m, I’m investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels. … These investments in wind, in solar and biofuels and focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives. -Mimi

Interesting thought that your WND article got it's info from Science Magazine, are they not scientists? Otherwise, MSNBC will rot your brain even more than WND.

FYI, good for the Gov and his guy to be skeptical of climate change. It was the flat-earthers that were the consensus back in the day, the skeptics challenged that consensus.

Excuse me, but it is Nancy Pelosi that believes fossil fuels aren't fossil fuels.



Interesting thought that your WND article got it's info from Science Magazine, are they not scientists? Otherwise, MSNBC will rot your brain even more than WND.

FYI, good for the Gov and his guy to be skeptical of climate change. It was the flat-earthers that were the consensus back in the day, the skeptics challenged that consensus.


"Planet earth to McCorory..come in..."

"You have hired a person who promotes pseudo-science to be your Department of Natural Resources"

This isn't an article from the 1st of April... is it?

The abiotic oil hypothesis is hardly a new one ;nor did it originate from some flat earthers . It is indeed a hypothesis no more or less valid than the finite fossil fuel hypothesis . Perhaps it explains how oil and natural gas deposits are being found miles below the surface of the earth ,underneath solid rock formations . There happens to be a lot of organic material deep in the ocean where one would think no life exists . But the vents around the plates create an environment where thermophilic organic life has been found . Who cares if you don't like WND or Corsi as your source ! Perhaps you should look deeper to US World and New Reports . Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring) But that's ok ..... As usual we see where 'consensus science' shows it's intolerance of anyone who dare challenge the orthodoxy . .

I can't see the problem with the possibility that the generation of oil is a natural process, I do find it just as hard to believe that there were so many ancient fish, etc that they account for all the oil or the distribution of it and I would like an explanation of how upright tree trunks have been found in coal deposits. We don't know as much about the history of the Earth and the universe as we would like to think we do, so ranting and raving about someone's religious beliefs does not enhance the cause of science ex, you want to rave tell me where all the water came from because I find it hard to believe it came from comets one snowball at a time. You see your belief system, called science, doesn't satisfy my enquiring mind. That same science by the way would tell me that this might be one of the few places in the universe where water is found in the form it is on Earth

shhhh Clete.... you are challenging the orthodoxy ......to the inquisition with you !!!

Again, the source (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/604.full) was Science Magazine, not the bible:


Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field
Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons in natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive. Here, we present concentration, and stable and radiocarbon isotope, data from hydrocarbons dissolved in hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the ultramafic-hosted Lost City Hydrothermal Field. A distinct “inverse” trend in the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of C1 to C4 hydrocarbons is compatible with FTT genesis. Radiocarbon evidence rules out seawater bicarbonate as the carbon source for FTT reactions, suggesting that a mantle-derived inorganic carbon source is leached from the host rocks. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

Science 1 February 2008:
Vol. 319 no. 5863 pp. 604-607DOI:10.1126/science.1151194

And again, it was the skeptics who challenged the flat-earth consensus (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266), and the consensus seems to have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions for what, 17 years now? Adjusting your models to account for a swing and a miss isn't science, it's pseudo-science.

oh the irony . back in the day flat earth was consensus science and it was the deniers who were proven correct. Does the possibility of abiotic oil dismiss the peak oil theories ? Probably not . For our needs ,the oil supply is still finite and we need to transition away from hydrocarbons .

Tom the inquisition will want to know more than my thoughts on hydro-carbons and hydro, I'm a student of Velikovsky and we know the reception he got, and my religious thought might rattle a cage or two

Tom not denying that we need better systems for supplying our insatiable energy consumption and that getting out of the carbon cycle might be one of them, however being stuck in the present reality, we should concentrate on minimising damage from our activities as much as we concentrate on find new ways to consume. Just reducing the size and engine capacity of vehicles would do much as would losing the obscession with using trucks for long distance transport.

All projects should be assessed on the basis of their net damage, ie, solar panels do not overcome the impacts associated with their manufacture, nor do wind generators but everything is a trade off. Electric vehicles may require more damage than they offset.

The abiotic oil hypothesis is hardly a new one ;nor did it originate from some flat earthers . It is indeed a hypothesis no more or less valid than the finite fossil fuel hypothesis . Perhaps it explains how oil and natural gas deposits are being found miles below the surface of the earth ,underneath solid rock formations . There happens to be a lot of organic material deep in the ocean where one would think no life exists . But the vents around the plates create an environment where thermophilic organic life has been found . Who cares if you don't like WND or Corsi as your source ! Perhaps you should look deeper to US World and New Reports . Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring) But that's ok ..... As usual we see where 'consensus science' shows it's intolerance of anyone who dare challenge the orthodoxy . .


Yes, it is a hypothesis, but it isn't a working hypothesis that results in a scientific theory that can make testable predictions.

Again, the source (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/604.full) was Science Magazine, not the bible:



And again, it was the skeptics who challenged the flat-earth consensus (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266), and the consensus seems to have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions for what, 17 years now? Adjusting your models to account for a swing and a miss isn't science, it's pseudo-science.


One would need to see the whole report. What you have posted here is inconclusive.

If evidence of such an oil field exists then that would be reliable evidence. One would need to see the whole study before making a decision.

look, let's get this straight, the planet is a living organism and we are just a virus

Yes, it is a hypothesis, but it isn't a working hypothesis that results in a scientific theory that can make testable predictions.

Vladimir Kutcherov duplicated it in the lab at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The research is in it's infancy. But I've seen no other explanation for the findings of deposits deep beneath solid rock formations that were there at the time of the dinosaurs. We are talking 30,000 ft below the surface where the deepest known dinosaur fossils are at 16,000 ft. And if you are taking predictions ; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface.

Vladimir Kutcherov duplicated it in the lab at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The research is in it's infancy. But I've seen no other explanation for the findings of deposits deep beneath solid rock formations that were there at the time of the dinosaurs. We are talking 30,000 ft below the surface where the deepest known dinosaur fossils are at 16,000 ft. And if you are taking predictions ; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface.


What we have to date is a number of "mights" and "may".

From the article posted by speech that appears to be a conclusion:

Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons MAY* occur in the presence of ultramatic rock, water and moderate amounts of heat.
* my emphasis

From your above post:

And you are talking predictions; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil MIGHT* rise to the surface.


Based on cosmology I predict that there MIGHT be a multiverse.


I am not denying the possibility, but going back to the OP - I find it very odd if one decided to base an environmental policy on such predictions.

Actually, come to think of it this sounds exactly like global warming theory. That is to say, basing an environmental policy on a hypothesis that so far as failed to deliver any reliable predictions.

Which also reminds me of a question. Why are you so keen to reject global warming as pseudo science, yet you are prepared to embrace as similar idea when it comes biotic oil?

Don't worry I know the answer.

pseudo science is all around us, no one does serious research anymore they just dream using their computer. It is like some gigantic computer game, an alternate reality. or as suggested a multiverse where all possibilities exist

pseudo science is all around us, no one does serious research anymore they just dream using their computer. It is like some gigantic computer game, an alternate reality. or as suggested a multiverse where all possibilities exist

nope ,he duplicated it in the lab. You and I die and decompose ,get eaten by bugs and leave very little remains except some bones . Yet we are to believe that dinosaurs died ,and were converted into a liquid hydrocarbon goo. I'm not saying that's not possible . I just don't summarily dismiss alternate explanations like the "consensus " scientific community does.

nope ,he duplicated it in the lab. You and I die and decompose ,get eaten by bugs and leave very little remains except some bones . Yet we are to believe that dinosaurs died ,and were converted into a liquid hydrocarbon goo. I'm not saying that's not possible . I just don't summarily dismiss alternate explanations like the "consensus " scientific community does.


Tom, dinosaurs have nothing to do with oil deposits. These organic deposits that were to eventually become oil were laid down long before the first dinosaur.

yes I know that ..it's mostly decomposed plankton ,krill ,etc..... and one of the promising technologies is creating fuel from algae . Again that is a fine explanation for oil at certain depths . It doesn't explain the oil being found well below the strata where organic matter would be found.

One would need to see the whole report. What you have posted here is inconclusive.

If evidence of such an oil field exists then that would be reliable evidence. One would need to see the whole study before making a decision.

I didn't post it as conclusive evidence of anything other than the deceptiveness of the OP, it was his own source.

Endless Oil? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html)


American geologists might be convinced if the abiotic theorists can find big new oil fields using their methods. Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface. If he can raise money from investors, he hopes to begin searching for abiotic oil deposits in east Texas.

The proof is billions of barrels of oil, in which for now he is billions of barrels of oil short. I mean he even admits his own experiments have failed to produce the desired results.


In the 1980s, he convinced the Swedish government and investors to drill four miles through solid granite in central Sweden. They eventually recovered 84 barrels of oil. Gold considered it a scientific success, even though the project was a commercial failure.
To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth's mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components.


It's a theory with high promise but yet to be proven and too expensive. But you never know.

It's a theory with high promise but yet to be proven and too expensive. But you never know Let's make no mistake about it ...even if there was an endless supply of petro-carbons to exploit ,we still need to transition away from using them . We transitioned away from whale oil when a new technology was discovered and developed ;and the same will happen when the technology is discovered to replace oil.

I can go with that idea, mean while we are stuck with processing and transporting that dirty stuff from Canada so they can make a few bucks. Even sweet crude stinks as its being processed.

I didn't post it as conclusive evidence of anything other than the deceptiveness of the OP, it was his own source.

But, wasn't the OP source the WND report and MSNCB interview?

What you posted was AAAS Science and a Wall Street Journal report about global warming. If this is the case then why did you post the AAAS report?

yes I know that ..it's mostly decomposed plankton ,krill ,etc..... and one of the promising technologies is creating fuel from algae . Again that is a fine explanation for oil at certain depths . It doesn't explain the oil being found well below the strata where organic matter would be found.

Who says that dinosaurs were converted to liquid hydrocarbon goo? Has anyone ever actually made that claim?

I think you can safely cross that one off your possible list.

Who says organic matter cannot be found at any depth, we are ignorant of the conditions below the top layer of skin on this planet, in fact our ignorance is so great we think we can control conditions in the atmosphere

But, wasn't the OP source the WND report and MSNCB interview?

What you posted was AAAS Science and a Wall Street Journal report about global warming. If this is the case then why did you post the AAAS report?

Did you the WND article? It was based on the report, I said that in post #3. I'm not going to rehash it all, read it yourself. You're a smart guy and can make the connections.

Who says that dinosaurs were converted to liquid hydrocarbon goo? Has anyone ever actually made that claim?
actually yes .. that was the original "consensus "science on the origins of oil .It was taught in schools for years ;and in truth ,a portion of the oil may have originated from dinosaur remains.

Man oh man. You guys keeps dancing in circles. One of the ways material gets deep into the earth is through subduction. It is part of the process that we call plate tectonics that carries parts of the sea floor down to the mantle of the earth. The sea floor is rich in organic materials as well as many other chemicals including H2O. Those plates that have gone under may be returning as minerals in seperate form including oil. It is very possible that the oil supply is not at a finite level as far as being an ongoing process but it is finite in the amounts that can be taken at any given time. Just a thought.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)

well done dad, there is indeed a process for renewing the resources of the Earth, but of course subduction doesn't fit flat Earth religious views. I like the idea that oceanic waste can be subjected to enormous heat and pressure that melts rocks and can form oil, personally I thought it formed diamonds, but...

getting back to reality, yes our resources are finite as long as we insist on increasing population and consumption at expotential rates and conversion of consumption to some other media is going to run up against the same hurdles. Growth cannot be maintained.

This is not about the need for alternative resources, it's about an agenda that pretends it's scientific while slamming anyone who goes against the consensus. That isn't science, it's groupthink.

Case in point, a Harvard student has called for abandoning academic freedom in lieu of "academic justice," which apparently means only such research that meets our approved worldview may be published.

Harvard Urged to ‘Give Up on Academic Freedom,’ Shut Down Research Not Aligned With ‘Justice’ | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/22/harvard-urged-to-give-up-on-academic-freedom-shut-down-research-not-aligned-with-justice/)

Another case in point, according to CNN there is only one side to climate change, the consensus. Anyone that challenges that consensus is not a scientist.


The rundown for this Sunday's show – Reliable Sources - CNN.com Blogs (http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/the-rundown-for-this-sundays-show-3/)

And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them. Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists. This week NBC’s Meet the Press faced criticism for its debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. We’ll talk to Michio Kaku from the City University of New York and CBS News as well as Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor at the Huffington Post.

Excuse me, but I believe the two men that wrote the WSJ column I cited earlier are not only scientists, but participated on the IPCC. If science means ignoring the data, hiding data that conflicts with your view (hide the decline), adjusting your computer models to soften your spectacular fails on predictions, and silencing and impugning those who challenge your failures, then that isn't science. I hope you aren't in charge of any medical schools.

Hello again,

Data, schmata. I'm NOT a scientist. I'm just a guy looking around. I wouldn't know data if it smacked me in the head.. What I DO know, is that the atmosphere is FINITE, just like the oceans are, and just like the land masses are. I KNOW that throwing our trash on the ground isn't good.. I KNOW that throwing our trash into the ocean isn't good..

It DOESN'T take a great deal of scientific knowledge, therefore, to GRASP that throwing our trash into the air, also ISN'T a good thing.

excon

Science is proving your data, and applying it in the real world. And getting people to give you money for it. Research and development isn't cheap. No company is going to take the word of a scientist unless he can show them the money.

You guys are a riot, you argue we must believe the science then say the science doesn't matter. Make up your freakin minds, these fluid values of yours are impossible to understand, but I get it, you lefties just change the rules of the game when your arguments are proven ridiculous.

Its not lefties or righties applying or denying science speech, it's the guys with money who want to make money. Talk to them about your scientific opinions and let me know what they tell you.

Money is reality in THIS world.

Its not lefties or righties applying or denying science speech, it's the guys with money who want to make money. Talk to them about your scientific opinions and let me know what they tell you.

Money is reality in THIS world.

So you stick to the money argument and ex can make up his mind whether or not the science matters.

yes this issue goes across ideological divides. The 1st time I heard of abiotic oil was on the Thom Hartmann show. He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.

He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.Interesting theory since "peak oil' was a big motivation for those striving to create alternative energy options.

Consensus is an important part of science without consensus science could not progress that's just the way it works.

A good example of this can be found in Newton's gravitational theories. Newton's Universal Gravitational Theory, for a long time was accepted as the complete explanation for the orbit of the planets. It became a consensus science.

It was later discovered that Mercury did not obey Newton because it had an unusual orbit. The first thing that consensus science did was to try and modify the theory in order to explain Mercury's orbit.

When this failed other postulates were proposed. The last thing anyone wanted to do was deny the validity of accepted orthodoxy.No doubt anyone who suggest that Newton was wrong would have been looked upon with a deal of skepticism.The problem was finally resolved when Einstein came onto the scene.

The point I am making is that consensus science is an essential process that science goes through. Science will try just about anything to keep the prevailing orthodoxy. The last resort being the modification of the hypothesis in the hope that theory will match the observations. If this also fails then there is nothing left except to find a new theory.

In terms of global warming science is just doing what it has always done. Just going through the process.

Consensus is important, but science does not dismiss evidence that contradicts. Period.

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ? Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ? Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

Again, exactly right. True science does not manipulate data for a preferred outcome or dismiss evidence that contradicts.

look global warming is pseudo science, what we know for sure is something is happening, we have consensus on that, we have paleoscientists tell us this is just part of a longer cycle, we have politicians telling us we must act to stop it immediately, we have computer modellers telling us the sky is falling, no wait it's not falling, the ocean is rising, well at least they got that one right, but the oceans have been rising for thousands of years personally I don't think anything is happening that wasn't happening before we noticed it is happening

Politics, and money often muddy the waters of facts.

the opposite of politics is fact or truth depending upon your point of view but politics is the science of dogooding at someoneelses expense, they have a term for it; political science

Consensus is important, but science does not dismiss evidence that contradicts. Period.


Oddly enough it does. Anomalies appear in most levels of scientific study and for the most part they are accepted or tolerated. They are usually put down as acceptable levels of error or dismissed all together.

Clearly such a situation must eventually reach the point where it becomes intolerable, and there is a need to recognize that the theory is inadequate or completely wrong. This is where a modification of the hypothesis usually becomes the first resort.

As far as the scientists who falsify data are concerned they see the best resort as scientific dishonesty. Clearly such people are not prepared to modify anything and certainly are not prepared to consider a new theory when or if it becomes apparent.

At this stage it appears that the working hypothesis of global warming is not delivering suitable predictions. As usual science will probably go through its usual process as outlined earlier.

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ?



No, it's not a valid scientific argument, but it is a valid psychological argument.
Both arguments play an important role in science.




Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

I don't know the answer to that and I would suggest not many people do. The information is out there somewhere. Herein is a good research project for you.

The information is out there somewhere

That's not all that is out there somewhere but it as apt description of what is suggested is climate "science"

Apparently the NY Slimes thinks skeptics should just be eliminated (http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/02/23/nyt-eliminationist-rhetoric/?singlepage=true). They just published a cartoon depicting a guy getting stabbed in the chest by an icicle - aka "self-destructing sabers for dispatching climate change deniers."

45714

Not funny. One scientist has had enough and about damn time. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D (http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/)., a former NASA climatologist and now the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is pushing back.

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/)

Outrage over cartoons?

Just like those Islam folks who are outraged at Mohammed cartoons.

Just like those Islam folks who are outraged at Mohammed cartoons.

The comparison you're looking for would be the climate change extremists to those outraged over the Mohammed cartoons.

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/)

Like the cartoon, it's just another political rave devoid of anything useful that could be considered useful to the debate. I blame the media.

imagine if a conservative posted a cartoon of a skeptic stabbing a global warming cult believer with an icicle ? They went nuts when they though Palin had a target in one of her political ads . They blamed her for a mass shooting .

imagine if a conservative posted a cartoon of a skeptic stabbing a global warming cult believer with an icicle ? They went nuts when they though Palin had a target in one of her political ads . They blamed her for a mass shooting .


Tom I am not sure why you are complaining. Aren't you a great supporter of your media? Irresponsible journalism is Ok?

Like the cartoon, it's just another political rave devoid of anything useful that could be considered useful to the debate. I blame the media.

What debate? That's the problem, there is no debate (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/science-close-facimile-785064-4.html#post3623351).


And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them.

Let that sink in, only one side to a 'debate.'

What debate? That's the problem, there is no debate (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/science-close-facimile-785064-4.html#post3623351).



Let that sink in, only one side to a 'debate.'


Again, it's like I said before. It is a media problem you have. Only airing one side of the debate. You need a balanced media.

Tom I am not sure why you are complaining. Aren't you a great supporter of your media? Irresponsible journalism is Ok? I'm in favor of a free press (unlike our emperor who is tying still to sic his FCC on a free press) . If the Slimes wants to publish the cartoon I have no issues .But I reserve the right to call out their BS .

Thank you for the article from Roy Spencer
Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/)

He makes a clear case for climate change caution

Again, it's like I said before. It is a media problem you have. Only airing one side of the debate. You need a balanced media.

I have no qualms agreeing we need more balance in the media, but this attitude goes deeper than media bias. In fact, the "consensus" people think it's the media's fault that anyone believes there is still any debate.

I choose not to believe everything I am told, that is the media's fault because so often what they have told me is B/S, neither is it their fault since so often what they are told is B/S and they have no way of checking the facts. We have here FactCheck a service the media have developed themselves and most of the results indicate the "facts" are not facts but we are still regailed with this B/S before the truth is revealed

http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/

I choose not to believe everything I am told, that is the media's fault because so often what they have told me is B/S, neither is it their fault since so often what they are told is B/S and they have no way of checking the facts. We have here FactCheck a service the media have developed themselves and most of the results indicate the "facts" are not facts but we are still regailed with this B/S before the truth is revealed

Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/)

That just goes to show you how out of touch I have been with Australian politics.

I didn't realize that the ABC was doing such a thing.

Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.

I have no qualms agreeing we need more balance in the media, but this attitude goes deeper than media bias. In fact, the "consensus" people think it's the media's fault that anyone believes there is still any debate.

That's pretty much correct. However, this situation is not unique to global warming. One would need to read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of scientific Revolutions" to gain a full appreciation.

There's a bit of holiday reading.

I'm in favor of a free press (unlike our emperor who is tying still to sic his FCC on a free press) . If the Slimes wants to publish the cartoon I have no issues .But I reserve the right to call out their BS .

The left posts BS and the right calls them on their BS. The rights posts BS and the left calls them on their BS.

That's bound to lead to a reasoned debate on any topic your choose.

Let's face it Australian politics is so boring.

If american politics is anything like the discussions here then I have to say you have no idea of boring, the most daring thing you have done lately is restrict the military budget. We might be boring but we do have action a word so foriegn to american politics it is buried in antiquity

Did you realise that lately we had an election overturned and the voters sent back to the poles, if that had happened there there would be no end to the recriminations and protest but here we take it in our stride and accept a resignation, this is what true democracy is about but then you don't have a democracy, you have a Republic

The left posts BS and the right calls them on their BS. The rights posts BS and the left calls them on their BS.

That's bound to lead to a reasoned debate on any topic your choose.

As I said the other day, CNN declared the debate is over, not once, but twice. Charles Krauthammer wrote a column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html) on this subject last week. The opening paragraph:


I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html) that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

You can read and judge the rest for yourself. The response (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/) to his column however was pressure on WaPo to silence him.


Charles Krauthammer says it right up front (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html) in his Washington Post column: “I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier.”


He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”


How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer's column on Friday.


Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.

Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.


I understand that many people are passionate about global warming and consider skeptics to be flat-earthers. Those who don't like the arguments by Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, should by all means criticize, dispute, denounce and otherwise go at him. That's how debate takes place in a country with a vibrant media culture.


Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what's the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall?


Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.”


When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?


“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”


Maybe this reflects a broader trend in which people want to wall themselves off from contrary information — and wall off others as well. Debating a complicated subject like climate change — and, equally important, what to do about it — is difficult. Attempting to silence the other side is the easy way out.


Of course, most climate-change proponents are perfectly willing to argue their case on the merits. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everyone.



Yes, both sides spew BS, but only one side wants there to be no debate to the debate. Why might that be?

Yes, both sides spew BS, but only one side wants there to be no debate to the debate. Why might that be?

That's probably because one side has far too much to loose if it turns out that something other than global warming is happening. No doubt too many politicians, scientific organizations and business interests have invested lots of money in the long term viability of global warming.

The long term viability of global warming? I Have some idea what you mean but would you like to run that by us again? I never thought I would see the words viability and global warming in the same sentence, Global Warming, if it exists in the configuration suggested by pseudo science, makes the viability of our existing industries obsolute, and I cannot not see renewables as we know them being viable in the long term

The long term viability of global warming? I Have some idea what you mean but would you like to run that by us again? I never thought I would see the words viability and global warming in the same sentence, Global Warming, if it exists in the configuration suggested by pseudo science, makes the viability of our existing industries obsolute, and I cannot not see renewables as we know them being viable in the long term


Sure. The green energy push has gained momentum year after year. Big business is increasingly investing money and resources into both renewable energy and clean energy.

I suspect that such industries are not going to invest long term in something that is not regarded as a settled science.

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amout owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

Exactly right.

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet.

Yes, that's a good point I didn't look at that angle.

I guess that goes back to my earlier claim in terms of partnership.Big government, big business and a supportive media.

Tutt there are always industries that respond to government initiatives. I worked in the energy sector when government imposed targets on state owned utilities and are now doing it on privately owned utilities. This is the only reason there has been the uptake of renewables there has been. It is imposed by government, the returns just arn't there

Tutt there are always industries that respond to government initiatives. I worked in the energy sector when government imposed targets on state owned utilities and are now doing it on privately owned utilities. This is the only reason there has been the uptake of renewables there has been. It is imposed by government, the returns just arn't there


Fair enough, you guys would know more about economics than myself.

Profiteers shapes the science. Doesn't matter what the science says.

Tut I respectfully disagree. Another reason for investing in it is that they garner huge tax credits from it thereby reducing the amount owed and it is a good checkmark to put on the company PR sheet. yup ;we spent $528 million in stimulus money for Fisker to develop clean energy ...so they could be sold to the Chinese.

Obviously you don't get it, so you throw money away. The "free" market would not waste their money developing clean energy unless they were either forced to or given incentive. This why governments all over the world have been coerced into forcing such development. Commercial development of anything means it can and will be sold to the highest bidder. Commercial development means it will be exploited

Dealing with climate change is aspirational, it is not science. The "science" of how to respond to climate change is not settled and one size does not fit all

The "free" market would not waste their money developing clean energy unless they were either forced to or given incentive
That is just not true . The free market IS developing that without any government incentives ;just like they have in the past without the big nanny's help. Now if the government is going to take taxpayer's money from them and give it to their cronies ,then the cronies will be more than happy to take it . But the truth is that green energy would be developed nonetheless ,unless of course there is no future for it .
I think you mistake R&D with government handouts to companies. Government has a proper role in R&D . It has NO business in shaping the marketplace ;except to perhaps encourage demand.

except to perhaps encourage demand.

and how do they do that Tom, spending over bloated budgets on expensive toys? No, government has no place in encouraging demand, it's place is in providing a level playing field through appropriate legislation

Development takes years and sadly we have enough work that we don't have to paint rocks but the problem is that the legislature has failed to bring about any jobs plan to do the work. Sadly small business doesn't have the leverage or credit to secure financing through the bloated banks and consumers are basically broke and underpaid.

People buying stuff is what creates the demand that everyone wants, and people want to work and buy stuff. No money no circulation, no economy. It's a very simple concept.

so tal you are providing the platform for a lift in the minimum wages to reduce the ranks of the underpaid thereby increasing demand but perhaps lowering employment. The alternative is to force banks to lend as was done before the GFC. the problem is there has been too much demand that has beeen filled by cheap shoddy imports and we cannot blame China for that we must blaime our own capitalists who would rather invest their money offshore

and how do they do that Tom, spending over bloated budgets on expensive toys? no ;obviously Keynesian tinkering doesn't work . But government can stimulate the markets with a sensible tax policy that allows taxpayers to keep more of their money .
People buying stuff is what creates the demand that everyone wants yup

Tom taxation policy creates nothing, giving back to the people that which is their's does little and focuses on the wrong side of the equation. Ask yourself when were you richer, when you had higher taxation or lower? Lower taxation hasn't created demand, that is a failed policy, just shoddy politics. If you are going to have the policies your legislators put in place in response to people voting for their policies, the mandate, then taxation must reflect this. It is the other side of the coin. Some higher taxing countries have very strong economies. If you all actually paid an additional 5% many of your problems would ebe solved

we'll just have to disagree on that .

They couldn't get a .1% tax increase for a low interest leverage for a 10 year infrastructure project 3 years ago. Good luck with 5%.

If you are going to have the policies your legislators put in place in response to people voting for their policies, the mandate, then taxation must reflect this. Yes . What we have is record spending while the emperor claims we are on austerity ,and idiotic nonsense from the party that controls half the legislative branch and the executive about how encouraging people to be non-productive is a good thing .

As I said in another context SHODDY POLITICS You have to pay for the programs, this generation has to pay, not some future generation, or you could just force feed inflation as you have been doing recently and watch the loss in purchasing power swallow the deficit along with your economy

Politics is about money, and the driving force behind the science. It's not shoddy when the purpose of science is to make ones self rich, and richer.

Rich guys have plenty of purchasing power Clete, more than they ever had in history, and they want more. And they will make the science turn a profit. That's supply side economics 101.

Unfortunately Clete is right in that we have to pay for the prolific spending of the "progressive" state . What history has proven over and over again is that supply side cuts generate revenue because of the economic growth that follows. You could confiscate all the money from the wealthy and still not pay for all your government spending programs ;the debt ,and future entitlement obligations. Clete ,we are already paying for this with sluggish Euro-socialist style growth rates ...... and yes ,a big chunk of this is passed on to future generations .What do the big government pols. care ? Even the ones that park their a$$es in Congress for as long as John Dingleberry did know that they will be out of office ,living on their generous government retirement benefits ,the grease they accumulated ,and their final pay off speaking gigs ,long before the bill comes due .

FYI, if the planet keeps getting hotter Chipotle might have to axe the guacomole (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3360731/chipotle-guacamole-crisis/#).


It’s your choice, America. Fix the climate, or the guac gets it.

I say the guac stays.

Fix the climate?

Fix the climate?

Show me what's wrong with the climate and we can talk. Not interested in bullsh*t fear mongering, I'm a "factivist."

FYI, if the planet keeps getting hotter Chipotle might have to axe the guacomole (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3360731/chipotle-guacamole-crisis/#).



I say the guac stays.

Thought you were a guacamole lover? Chipolte is lying? I like the guac too, what should we do?

They ought to be complaining about the artificial man-made drought that is affecting the avocado crop.

Thought you were a guacamole lover? Chipolte is lying? I like the guac too, what should we do?

I've only posted about the man made drought tom mentioned a dozen times or so, was I lying?

Hello Steve:

Man made drought??? Sounds suspiciously LIBERAL.

excon

Fix the climate?
I'm with you Tal, would someone please tell me how this might be accomplished? Lowering CO2 emissions won't "FIX" the climate.

There is no man made drought, there is a climate cycle and dought is part of it, over long cycles, and there are long cycles, there are times of drought and there are times of floods, fortunately most of the weather in between is less extreme. If there is anything that can be ascertained from observation is that desertification is something that has been happening for long time and may be the result of agricultural practices. You want to stop drought and change the climate, change agricultural practices and plant some trees. In other words, kick big business out of agriculture

There is no man made drought,
yes there is ;they refuse to channel available water to agricultural sectors of the state because they are afraid of the negative impact to a bait fish. The failed crops are a direct result of a decision to deny the farms irrigation water . So when Chipolte makes a claim that they can't offer guacamole ,they should at least be honest about the cause.

irrigation is the very form of agribusiness which should be opposed it is artificial and alters the ground water regime so returning to the way things were is not creating drought, look at what irrigation did to the Ariel Sea it actually created an arid area

irrigation turns arid lands fertile and feeds people. Oh yeah that's right ...you are a Malthusian and think the human race should be culled.

I bet the fishing industry would take issue with you destroying their bait fish, or changing the eco system for farmers.

...you are a Malthusian and think the human race should be culled.


No Tom not every idea of corporates is a great idea and irrigation schemes have been proven to be a problem and destructive of important river systems. Daming rivers creates problems look at what was created when Hoover dam was created, it allowed a city to flourish where no city could exist and for what purpose, agriculture? no, heddonism and greed. You know I abhour the worst aspects of your culture Tom and many of your schemes wreck the environment. I see people like you who stand in the way of progress by clinging to destructive ways for profit.

How much of the environment of the planet is being destroyed so Las vegas can exist? Just one example of wrong thinking

If it wasnt for northern California southern California wouldnt exist. The whole basis of the water system (the California auqafur) was built solely to provide needed water to southern California. If it werent there that whole region would dry up to a desert.

You mean return to what it was before. Irrigation schemes have limited life, times change, needs change and the time has come to be more selective about what we do with water and not create systems that are unsustainable. History is littered with civilisations who flourised with such schemes, developed beyond what the resources could sustain and died

Agriculture is still the main industry of the state. There is NOTHING wrong with irrigation. The people of California turned desert into oasis ,and it's only that which enables Chipolte to get the avocados they need for their guacamole . There is an abundance of water in Northern California to irrigate the farms AND preserve the smelt . Geeze ;I should take this attitude ... NYC ,you are no longer entitled to our upstate water supply ... Die !!!!!

Pay a northern farmer to grow all the avocados Chipolte needs.

exactly, grow the plant where the water exists or import the fruit and help out a third world economy. The plant belongs in a different ecosystem, just because an industry has conveniently established itsself doesn't mean it must be supported, they took the risk

Avocados do well in the mild-winter areas of California, Florida and Hawaii. They don't do well in the Sierra Madres and other mountain ranges where the source water originates. Like I said ,with your thinking applied ,there would be no water source for LA ,NYC ,and other major cities in the nation.....and of course you love the fact that food would have to be imported instead of home grown. Oh wait ...I see . If water is being diverted hundreds of miles to supply cities dominated by progressives it's ok. But screw those Republican farmers and ranchers. We'll show them ! Turn the farms that feed the nation into desert and use the lamest of environmental excuses as justification.....then blame it on global warming . So transparently pathetic !

So transparently pathetic !

what is so transparently pathetic is that you think any excuse justifies your argument. Avacados are not native to your nation and prosper in high rainfall areas what is wrong with importing them and sticking to products better suited to your climate. Problem is there are vast stretches of your nation, and mine, unsuited to cropping without irrigation. So be it, you have a vast river system where irrigation can be carried out profitably and cities with large populations provided with water, not every square inch of your land needs to be under use

what is so transparently pathetic is that you think any excuse justifies your argument. Avacados are not native to your nation and prosper in high rainfall areas what is wrong with importing them and sticking to products better suited to your climate. Problem is there are vast stretches of your nation, and mine, unsuited to cropping without irrigation. So be it, you have a vast river system where irrigation can be carried out profitably and cities with large populations provided with water, not every square inch of your land needs to be under use

lol ;most of our land is unused. A third of the land mass is owned by the Federal Government ( 650 million acres ); a travesty in it's own right . Before politics came into play ,the land produced abundance and there was still enough water to preserve the bait fish.
What would you have humans do ? Devolve and go back to being hunter gatherers ? Agriculture civilized humans ,and early on humans learned to divert water to places where it could be exploited for productive use.
The areas of our country that are not suited for agriculture are not utilized as such . But areas like the San Joaquin Valley ;with the help of irrigation ,is some of the most productive farmland on earth.

Then let Chipolte pay for the irrigation. It's a simple concept, those who profit can pay. Same with a road, or bridge.

You don't think the whole state of California profits from it's most important industry ?

Then let them pay for their own irrigation. If the south needs water they can negotiate with the north.

Tal, the irrigation was already in place. It is not a matter of making something new its a matter of allowing its existing use. The fact that all the fish are going to die anyway if they make their way down the line doesnt appear to be a problem. Also it seems only to affect the farmers and not southern California as a whole.

The bait fish attracting the catch fish for the fishing industry was my understanding as the overriding interest of the farmers and the diverting of water resources. If there are additional facts please fill those blanks in my understanding, and if indeed they have a system in place what's the greater need? Is there a way to serve them both?

and if indeed they have
a system in place what's the greater need? Is there a way to serve them both?
indeed the system was in place long before the US Fish and Wildlife Service wackos and an activist judge got involved. The fact is that there is no study linking a lower smelt population to the pumping needed to irrigate the Central Valley . It's NOT that the water isn't there . It already runs ;often through the farms . Farmers are being denied access to the water .
One other point ,if the Central Valley was allowed to be restored to it's natural state ,it would be more swampy than desert . It's the population centers like LA that depends on diverting water supplies for potable water .

ah the curse of civilisation