In a nightmarish prediction of where the world might be headed in this century a new study on climate change is predicting amongst other things an ocean erupting in great balls of fire
Catastrophic climate change 'inevitable', scientists warn | World News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26375158-401,00.html)
One has to wonder at the timing of this news release, coming as it does ahead of the Copenhagen round of talks. So now we have some scientists telling as there has been no discernible temperature rise in the last few years and another group telling us we are headed for an increase of 6'C.

I think it is time to cut the crap of computer modeling and for someone to bring forth research that is reliable and factual

I think it is time to cut the crap of computer modeling and for someone to bring forth research that is reliable and factual

Bingo!!

A little more to add with strange statistics associated with climate change. Apparently, the Ice cap in Antarctica is melting, some many millions of tonnes of ice are being lost each year as the snow and ice formation doesn't match the melting. Should we be concerned at this news, well, yes, we should expect a rise in sea levels of half a metre, that's eighteen inches in American English, in the next one thousand years. Hang on a minute, isn't that number in the next hundred years, some confusion there or did someone just let the cat out of the bag

Now this momentous piece of news is undoubted of great concern if you live in Bangladesh or Tuvalu and it does mean some of those beachfront homes should not be built but seriously, surely some climate scientists could put their time to better use as the indicators of beach front erosion are very obvious.

I think the biggest problem is the computer models only have data from a few decades, from which, it has to be impossible to predict what is going to happen

What I would love to see a politician state is this

Pollution is not good for anything, lets get it reduced - how hard is simple!?

phlanx . I see you are avoiding the very unscientific activities being done at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia .

Of course the argument of last resort is "pollution is bad" . No one disputes that although it is used frequently here as if it were some coup de grace debate ender.
It is meant to side step increasing evidence that the whole AWG argument is a house built on eroding sand.

Morning Tom

I can appreciate the argument is scientifically unsound on whether Global warming is man or nature, but there is no disputing the facts that man does send out an enormous amount of gasses, chemicals, and metals into the atmosphere, the majority of which are dangerous to us and the environment

Until all scientists agree on a fact then generally I ignore it, especially understanding how grants work both here and in the states, politically influenced money is never to be taken on first hand

I have stated in previous posts a simple disiel engine churns out gases that nobody wants, so what is the problem with excepting the argumnet that pollution is bad, and we should cut down on all emissions as much as technology allows us to do

I think they use CO2 as the common gas in all emissions made

I'm all for implementing known proven technology . That is a no brainer . I say the innovations are already happening .

Let's use diesel as the standard since you brought it up .The VW Polo uses a cleaner and more efficient diesel engine than the hybrids do. So which should be adopted ? One with a proven performance ;or one that is still very much theory ?

This let's not throw junk into the air paints all us skeptics as approving spewing toxic gasses into the air ,You and Ex can say it over and over again and it will still misrepresent our position.

it will still misrepresent our position.Hello again, tom:

I don't believe I've ever heard your position... Oh, I've heard you say NO to the science. I've heard you say NO to cap and trade. In fact, I haven't heard anything except NO.

Can I assume from that, that "your position" is market based, therefore, industry will fix it all by itself, and the government should keep its hands off?

Or, perhaps you have a more hands on approach that I've, somehow, missed.

excon

Do I think that it is the government's role to monitor and regulate if necessary ?Yes ;in fact there is a clear Constitutional mandate under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of Article One sec. 8 for regulatory powers of the government. But I think they are often abused.
Do I think that market based solutions work best ? Yes . I think that the government that recognizes that fact instead of steering a course towards fantasy and unproven solutions would serve the people best .

Yes ;in fact there is a clear Constitutional mandate under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of Article One sec. 8 for regulatory powers of the government. But I think they are often abused.Hello again, tom:

Is there a problem that even needs a solution? If so, what regulation do you propose that ISN'T abusive?

excon

Clarify please . Are saying the AGW is cause by man made emissions requiring government regulations that would destroy the economy of the nation and the world ? Because that is what the issue being debated is about ;not general pollution .

Pollution is and will continue to be regulated ;and when practicle new regulations are implemented .

I'm all for implementing known proven technology . That is a no brainer . I say the innovations are already happening .

Let's use diesel as the standard since you brought it up .The VW Polo uses a cleaner and more efficient diesel engine than the hybrids do. So which should be adopted ? One with a proven performance ;or one that is still very much theory ?

This let's not throw junk into the air paints all us skeptics as approving spewing toxic gasses into the air ,You and Ex can say it over and over again and it will still misrepresent our position.

I appreciate that market lend demand is always the way markets should be driven, however there are some issues where I believe a little nudge or carrot on a string should steer the market

Pollution is all well and good but if we are not all heading in the right direction then those that pollute ruin it for all of us

I agree that just because its states eco doesn't mean it is, the facts have to be looked at, but I believe tax credits or whatever incentive should force the market to R&D these designs, try them etc and the market needs to do what it does best with this new direction

How can an argument be made any simpler

clarify please . Are saying the AGW is cause by man made emissions requiring government regulations that would destroy the economy of the nation and the world ? Because that is what the issue being debated is about ;not general pollution .

Pollution is and will continue to be regulated ;and when practicle new regulations are implemented .

Talk about burying your head in the sand, oil is and will run out at some point, it cannot remain as the prime focus of fuel in this world

So whatever happens, a replacement needs to be delivered, and the economies will change to suit

Or shall we all just sit here and wait for it to go and then do something, because it will very pricey soon!

Talk about burying your head in the sand, oil is and will run out at some point, it cannot remain as the prime focus of fuel in this world

Exploration of alternatives has always been a function of the private market. Edison did not need government grants as an incentive to work on the electric light bulb . Nor were there concerns about the future supply of whale oil to prompt the government to regulate it off the market. When the alternative was available there was a natural switch.

I'll put aside your assumption about petroleum because neither you nor I have any idea if and when we will run out. There is a theory that suggests the oil supply is a result of tectonic activity and is not in fact fossil based organic decomposition.

I say that there is enough incentive for the private sector to do R&D because if they can come up with a viable alternative then they can replace those evil big oil/energy companies. The secret of course is that these companies are in many ways leading the way in the research .

There is a theory that suggests the oil supply is a result of tectonic activity and is not in fact fossil based organic decomposition.

.

What ever the source, the supply is finite as it is with other fuels such as coal and uranium. There are sustainable alternatives but as ever we want the least cost solution. What we have failed to realise in all of this is that there are too many people chasing the scarce resource and that our efforts would be better directed to population control than to emissions control. We hear every day of how many die for lack of food, etc but our population continues to rise at an expotential rate. There is far too much concentration on individual freedom implicit in the debate, every solution implies we have the freedom to continue as we are.

So how about it should we set population growth targets along side of our emissions targets?

Forget ocean fireballs, we're going to kill each other due to global warming...


Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows - and future warming is likely to increase the number of deaths from war.

US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.

Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they suggest strife arises when the food supply is scarce in warm conditions.

Climatic factors have been cited as a reason for several recent conflicts.

One is the fighting in Darfur in Sudan that according to UN figures has killed 200,000 people and forced two million more from their homes.

Previous research has shown an association between lack of rain and conflict, but this is thought to be the first clear evidence of a temperature link...

If temperatures rise across the continent as computer models project, future conflicts are likely to become more common, researchers suggest.

Interesting how this is being reported while most of the media ignores Climategate (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/climate-change-scam-uncovered-417809.html).

Forget ocean fireballs, we're going to kill each other due to global warming...


Yes undoubtedly there will be war over scarce resources and the trade wars will begin as soon as there is a real agreement. Then there will be the wars over water as drought lessens supply. This is already a serious issue in Africa and once the hordes start to move out of countries that have become unlivable there will be massive wars over living space. Europe, Australia, America think they are in repel borders mode now but in a few years attitudes will change markedly to a zero tolerance. However those ocean fireballs may be an answer in disguise, who will risk a sea crossing if the ocean will incinerate you

Exploration of alternatives has always been a function of the private market. Edison did not need government grants as an incentive to work on the electric light bulb . Nor were there concerns about the future supply of whale oil to prompt the government to regulate it off the market. When the alternative was available there was a natural switch.

I'll put aside your assumption about petroleum because neither you nor I have any idea if and when we will run out. There is a theory that suggests the oil supply is a result of tectonic activity and is not in fact fossil based organic decomposition.

I say that there is enough incentive for the private sector to do R&D because if they can come up with a viable alternative then they can replace those evil big oil/energy companies. The secret of course is that these companies are in many ways leading the way in the research .

Tom,

The facts are this :

Human Polulation is growing

Industrialised Countries are Growing

The demand for oil is growing

The price of oil will increase

Unless we find a pocket of oil that rivals all other oil wells before it, this will continue

The chances of finding an oil pocket that size on this planet is so minute it is not funny, so you want to argue for the continued use of oil, and other fossil fuels, or in your words, fuels that come from something but we just don't know what, instead of trying to solve the problem now?

Tom, I live a village that has a biomass power station, this will provide power to village regardless of whatever else happens

So, while you are paying $300 a barrel in a decade or two, I will be zooming around in my electric car and pennies per day

Tom,

The facts are this :

Human Polulation is growing

Industrialised Countries are Growing

The demand for oil is growing

The price of oil will increase

Unless we find a pocket of oil that rivals all other oil wells before it, this will continue

The chances of finding an oil pocket that size on this planet is so minute it is not funny, so you want to argue for the continued use of oil, and other fossil fuels, or in your words, fuels that come from something but we just dont know what, instead of trying to solve the problem now?

Tom, I live a village that has a biomass power station, this will provide power to village regardless of whatever else happens

So, while you are paying $300 a barrel in a decade or two, I will be zooming around in my electric car and pennies per day

Steve you are correct to expect that the price of oil will grow, but this will be from demand as much as from lack of supply. The possibility that we will find other oil fields with reserves as large as those we already have is good because there are many parts of the ocean as yet unexplored, antarctica is unexplored, Africa and the arctic has much potential. Whether this century or next the supply of oil is finite

Biomass is not an answer to power supply, conditions change, it is short term at best but an answer does lie in distributed generation however the price of power will rise and may outstrip oil in cost so large scale electric motoring may not be an answer.

There is only one answer for sustainability and it lies in reduction of demand. We are seeking to lower carbon emissions and the only way to realistically do that is to reduce demand. The time has come to reduce population before we get into a state of all out war over resources which will do it for us

Pretty much everything I have stated before clete, as the price will increase then the R&D will become more desirable

However, as the price increases, then alternatioves become more attractive

Biomass is the answer to small areas, or large complexes, cities will need nuclear

However it is the motoring that has to change for the better, with the taxes in europe on fuel it is well and above the wage limit and often increases are above inflation

This is something that has to be stopped by a shift in the market and reducing demand

Clete says petroleum will run out but cannot give a realistic enough date to steer policy. Much of the oil prices are due to the speculative nature of the commodity and international political factors.


Pretty much everything I have stated before clete, as the price will increase then the R&D will become more desirable

However, as the price increases, then alternatioves become more attractive

Biomass is the answer to small areas, or large complexes, cities will need nuclear

I agree with everything said here. The motivation will ,in other words, be market forces.

My big focus is for the United States to develop reliable and secure energy supplies . I don't like being held hostage . Therefore you will find most of us believe that it should be all hands on deck . Drill and explore and build more refining capacity... convert natural gas from being used to fuel electricity to use it to power our vehicles instead. Approve a standard breeder reactor model for the whole nation and begin to build them. Where practicle use alternatives . I think windmills cannot be gridded to make a major impact ;but solar technology can be a fine supplemental source.

Clete says petroleum will run out but cannot give a realistic enough date to steer policy. Much of the oil prices are due to the speculative nature of the commodity and international political factors.
Tom the unknown is whether there are new fields, we are already at the peak for known resources, so the time to act, to steer policy, is now.


My big focus is for the United States to develop reliable and secure energy supplies . I don't like being held hostage . Therefore you will find most of us believe that it should be all hands on deck . Drill and explore and build more refining capacity... convert natural gas from being used to fuel electricity to use it to power our vehicles instead. Approve a standard breeder reactor model for the whole nation and begin to build them. Where practicle use alternatives . I think windmills cannot be gridded to make a major impact ;but solar technology can be a fine supplemental source.

Yes we must develop more capacity until we improve our technology and loose our dependency, natural gas is already used to power vehicles in many countries, it is the US that is behind in using this technology as it is in using breeder reactors for base load generation. Wind and solar have a big draw back they are not available all of the time but there are others, wave in particular which can be used for base load. Once again it is behavioral modification which will do more to solve the problem than new plants. What we really need to do is get the environmentalists out of the way because they find fault with every alternative course of action

Clete says petroleum will run out but cannot give a realistic enough date to steer policy. Much of the oil prices are due to the speculative nature of the commodity and international political factors.

I agree with everything said here. The motivation will ,in other words, be market forces.

My big focus is for the United States to develop reliable and secure energy supplies . I don't like being held hostage . Therefore you will find most of us believe that it should be all hands on deck . Drill and explore and build more refining capacity .... convert natural gas from being used to fuel electricity to use it to power our vehicles instead. Approve a standard breeder reactor model for the whole nation and begin to build them. Where practicle use alternatives . I think windmills cannot be gridded to make a major impact ;but solar technology can be a fine supplemental source.

Tom

Your argument is not one that has any credibility

Let me explain, the more people in a country, the more growth in a country the more oil you will use

The more oil you will use, the bigger the demand, the higher the price

The higher the price, the more attractive alternative energy becomes

On top of that, why are you insisting on chasing the pot at the end of the rainbow?

Oil is and will run out, but not before the price increases dramatically, so why wait till this happens, find alternative fuels today, use them tomorrow, and by the end of the week, motors will be electric and not oil based

Pollution is cut dramtically, oil consumption is reduced and your market especially becomes less dependent on foreign nations

The answer Tom is not to try to find more oil - it is finite!

phlanx I fully understand that oil is the present technology and not the future. However ;until such alternatives are viable we fuel our economy on carbon based energy sources. When we find the alternatives we will certainly adopt them. That is how it has always worked in the past.

But until then I see no reason to base policy on a fantasy . We use oil and will continue to do so in the immediate future. That alone is enough justification to continue our exploration and exploitation of known supplies.

I know what your true reasoning is here. If by government decree the issue is forced ,then the alternatives will somehow magically appear sooner. That's not how it works . I already explained that with my Edison example. We did not build an oil infrastructure until private initiative discovered an abundant supply. Then the conversion happened rapidly .

And Clete; our behavior will modify just as rapidly when such alternatives are economically viable.

phlanx I fully understand that oil is the present technology and not the future. However ;until such alternatives are viable we fuel our economy on carbon based energy sources. When we find the alternatives we will certainly adopt them. That is how it has always worked in the past.

But until then I see no reason to base policy on a fantasy . We use oil and will continue to do so in the immediate future. That alone is enough justification to continue our exploration and exploitation of known supplies.

I know what your true reasoning is here. If by government decree the issue is forced ,then the alternatives will somehow magically appear sooner. That's not how it works . I already explained that with my Edison example. We did not build an oil infrastructure until private initiative discovered an abundant supply. Then the conversion happened rapidly .

And Clete; our behavior will modify just as rapidly when such alternatives are economically viable.

No mate, I don't think anything will magically appear, what I do understand to be true is R&D takes time

Models, projects must all be looked at and judged so the technology can be born, that is how it has always worked

What I campaign for is assistance in shortening the length of time it takes to complete this process, and this requires financial assistance, something the government is in a position to do

Oil research will continue because it is economically viable to do and only requires a broader control of the US Dollar to keep

Humans are creatures of habit, and more often than not need to be pushed out of this habit, filling the car at the pumps or plugging in to the mains does not stop you from getting to a-b now does it?

I'm sorry TUT ;these revelations cannot be dismissed. If there is no integrity in the scientific method then why shouldn't we conclude that all facts that science discovers is based on subjective and predetermined outcomes instead of the vaunted scientific method ?Hello p:

Salvo!

It may help your argument if you understood WHO you're arguing with... These are ANTI-scientists. These are Intelligent Design folks. You can't win.

excon

PS> Same thing with the health care debate.. They don't want a DEBATE. They want to KILL it. They think health care reform is a commie plot.

Sometimes, though, their REAL feelings come out, like toms above.

Morning Ex

All is well I trust :D

I guess your right, stuck in their ways, without a clue how to change

I am in the car game, and there is very little sweeter than the sound of a good V8, possibly a V10 :)

But even I can see that this is old and past due, and electric engines charged from renewable sources is the way forward

SO I really don't see how they can try to kill what everbody else sees as the future

Ex you know better. I can produce hundeds of examples on this cite where I have been a strong science supporter... including evolution.

Please honestly depict my positions.