Page 62 of 65 FirstFirst ...
12
52
60
61
62
63
64
... LastLast
  1. #1221
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Yea all the wacko scientists in every single science academy in the world, versus your opinion. OK.
    You mean like those whacko scientists hired by the Koch Bros who came up with the same conclusion?

  2. #1222
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    We want to destroy the world by convincing people that anthroprogenic climate change is real?

    No ones even talking about solutions in this thread. We're too busy combating debunked claims.
    I wasn't aiming this at everyone who thinks climate change is real. I mean, it's not like I'm arguing against its existance either.

    It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy.

  3. #1223
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I wasn't aiming this at everyone who thinks climate change is real. I mean, it's not like I'm arguing against its existance either.

    It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy.
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.

  4. #1224
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.
    What does this have to do with climate change?

    You see, the private sector is more than capable of tackling the problem of resource scarcity. What it cannot do is take care of most forms of pollution - there's no mechanism for that.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2013-01-15 at 12:14 PM.

  5. #1225
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    What does this have to do with climate change?
    It is a direct response to your line: "It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy."

  6. #1226
    Bloodsail Admiral larrakeyah's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.
    Peak oil is a lie Kasierith.

  7. #1227
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    It is a direct response to your line: "It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy."
    Resource scarcity doesn't have anything to do with "green policies". Green policies are aimed at reducing pollution. When it comes to energy they just happen to be connected. Altough Nuclear Energy is a viable green energy source as well.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2013-01-15 at 12:20 PM.

  8. #1228
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Resource scarcity doesn't have anything to do with "green policies". Green policies are aimed at reducing pollution. When it comes to energy they just happen to be connected.
    Than we must be on a different page, because I see research being put into energy sources that do not use nonrenewable resources, which just happen to be a contributor to climate change, as an inherent part of a coherent and well founded "green policy" approach. Your argument against such green policies is that they are economically inefficient. I am pointing out that there are parts of the plan that are not only economically efficient, but economically viable in the long run.

    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    Peak oil is a lie Kasierith.
    Is oil a renewable resource now, without that few billion years requirement? And do you still believe that making entire populations of people sick is acceptable for you to get at oil in a specific location?

  9. #1229
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Than we must be on a different page, because I see research being put into energy sources that do not use nonrenewable resources, which just happen to be a contributor to climate change, as an inherent part of a coherent and well founded "green policy" approach. Your argument against such green policies is that they are economically inefficient. I am pointing out that there are parts of the plan that are not only economically efficient, but economically viable in the long run.
    But the point is that when we start to talk about running out of resources there are other resources than just oil and natural gas. Things like running out of copper and so on have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. The perpetual nature of some green energies obviously adds to their attraction, but it doesn't mean they will be any better at stopping climate change.

    But to answer what I think is your question: Yes, when I consider what's economically viable I also take a look into the far future. That said, any economic gain in the future is worth much, much less than the same gain right now.

  10. #1230
    Bloodsail Admiral larrakeyah's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Is oil a renewable resource now, without that few billion years requirement? And do you still believe that making entire populations of people sick is acceptable for you to get at oil in a specific location?
    I posted this a while ago:

    "No man no, peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil, my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff, when asked about peak oil my father always relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s, but the endtime was around 2010 this time lol. Prophets of doom always have and always will exist. People need to think critically. Even Spain has found oil bro."

    Oil is not running out and peak oil prophets have always been wrong. Will we run out of oil? no. Will we run out of cheap oil? So far, for the next 50 years no. Technology is key. Fracking, economically viable fracking that is, was something unthinkable in the 70s, but look now, it's booming. In 20 years we will see a boom in Venezuela and Canada. Same with gas btw.

  11. #1231
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    I posted this a while ago:
    There is a distinct difference between random people that no one cares about no matter their credentials, and professionals in the field putting estimates in through structured research. Even studies pushed by large oil companies have identified peak oil as existing; their measurements for when the peak is have simply been pushed down the road further. It is indisputable for anyone with even basic scientific comprehension that such a limit exists. The difference simply shows that oil companies have the same intellectual honesty of cigarette companies who claim that there is no proof that smoking hurts people.

  12. #1232
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    I posted this a while ago:

    "No man no, peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil, my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff, when asked about peak oil my father always relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s, but the endtime was around 2010 this time lol. Prophets of doom always have and always will exist. People need to think critically. Even Spain has found oil bro."

    Oil is not running out and peak oil prophets have always been wrong. Will we run out of oil? no. Will we run out of cheap oil? So far, for the next 50 years no. Technology is key. Fracking, economically viable fracking that is, was something unthinkable in the 70s, but look now, it's booming. In 20 years we will see a boom in Venezuela and Canada. Same with gas btw.
    Well, eventually we will run out of oil. But it sure as hell isn't around the corner.

    I think many people fail to look at the history of oil. There have been many occasions when the known oil reserves have been seriously low (especially late 19th century and early 20th century). Yet surprisingly as our methods improved, we were able to find more of it and use it more efficiently.

    The market price of oil just doesn't reflect the peak oil hysteria that you sometimes see. And the guys who involve themselves in the oil market are the producers who have inside information about future oil supply, as well as oil users who know the demand side. Oil prices aren't going to spike because we run out of oil in the ground, they might spike because of politics or some huge accidents/catastrophes.

  13. #1233
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff,
    An appeal to nameless authority.

    relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s
    Using anecdotes to jump to conclusions by acting as though the argument that oil will run out depends on "a (random unnamed) professor claiming".

  14. #1234
    Bloodsail Admiral larrakeyah's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    An appeal to nameless authority.


    Using anecdotes to jump to conclusions by acting as though the argument that oil will run out depends on "a (random unnamed) professor claiming".

    Agree it's not very scientifical, but when your leftist greeny prophets start retreating then it's time to call a spade a spade:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ong?intcmp=122 that comes from a rabid anti-oiler.

    We have gone from "we are running out of oil" to "oil is plenty but man don't you think about the trees!"

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 02:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    An appeal to nameless authority.
    In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010.

  15. #1235
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,762
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It would be, except that I've bought literally hundreds (my house, fully stocked, needs about 80 bulbs) of those bulbs, and they rarely last a even year.

    I guess what we have have here is a case of conflicting anecdotes.

    (Oh yea... The light from a couple 40-watt standard soft-white bulbs is soooooo much nicer than a compact fluorescent. I have CFL's throughout the house, but I have standard bulbs in my office and reading area.)
    Back in 2000, I bought a large pack of dimmable energy saving "green" light bulbs. They had a 10 year guarantee on them that said if they failed before 10 years, you could mail the entire package in for a replacement (with proof of purchase date etc). That package and the receipt are still sitting in the top of my closet 12 years later, and not a single one of them has blown... I should probably just throw it away at this point since the warranty on them is no longer in date.

    There are probably a lot of poorly made ones out there that are indeed to gouge you for your money, but look out for the ones with warranties and guarantees. They're probably going to hold themselves to a much higher standard of quality and lasting power if people will actually hold them to that promise of quality.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  16. #1236
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    Agree it's not very scientifical
    That's really the only point of significance in your thinly veiled political drivel against imaginary "leftist greeny prophets".

    In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010.
    This proves that "peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil", how? It is impossible to argue against the fact that we will run out of oil.

  17. #1237
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    This proves that "peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil", how? It is impossible to argue against the fact that we will run out of oil.
    I think what he means, and what is usually meant by "peak oil" in these discussions is that we're now at the peak or have already passed it, and it's all downhill from here.

  18. #1238
    Bloodsail Admiral larrakeyah's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    That's really the only point of significance in your thinly veiled political drivel against imaginary "leftist greeny prophets".


    This proves that "peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil", how? It is impossible to argue against the fact that we will run out of oil.
    Then leftists shouldn't be that daring, keep dates out. You liked the article by the way? I, particularly, like this part:

    "The automatic correction – resource depletion destroying the machine that was driving it – that many environmentalists foresaw is not going to happen. The problem we face is not that there is too little oil, but that there is too much."

    This is a bad dream for some i believe:

    "The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty"
    Last edited by larrakeyah; 2013-01-15 at 01:30 PM.

  19. #1239
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I think what he means, and what is usually meant by "peak oil" in these discussions is that we're now at the peak or have already passed it, and it's all downhill from here.
    If it was, then he hasn't made it very clear. His posts read like he's disputing the idea that we will ever run out of oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    Then leftists shouldn't be that daring, keep dates out.
    Nobody cares. This irrelevant to the real debate over climate change. "Leftist", indeed.

  20. #1240
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,759
    The discussion about "peak oil" is irrelevant to this thread, and we should get back on topic, folks.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •