Contraversal!?!

[Giancarlo]

IPCC tech in response to the previous post's link http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686:

This study concluded that of the 928 articles in the ISI database of peer reviewed articles, not a single one accepted any other hypothesis.

Of course, the science can be wrong (this is what science is about: always in doubt) but pleeze.... the scientists are in agreement. The only "doubts" are in the newspapers, not the science magazines with peer review. I ask Mikey_s, a scientist, to check the link I give and tell us if the quality of the peer review is up to his standards (I think he'll give thumbs up on this one, btw).

As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.

See the link in my previous post for source.

[Ray]

I know in Iraq...they still used uranium coated bullets to pierce the armor plated cars and other hard metals

I'd love to know exactly where you got that from? A first hand account or some lying ass journalist on the BBC, or any number of crackpot liberal propaganda spewing news media here in the US? All the aircraft I worked on and all the rounds I was issued WERE NOT uranium depleted! Nor do I know anyone in MY vast network of Marine Corps and Army buddies that were issued any. They did use them in the early part of the war, but they aren't now. Plus, there have been no proven cases that I can find that DU rounds are an immediate dreadful health risk. There are theories that they are, but there are theories about chemical weapons being used on US troops in the Gulf War.

I'd love to know where everyone gets this bogus info of us murdering innocent civilians for oil and using illegal weapons? WE aren't murdering anyone, the so called 'insurgents' are blowing their countrymen up every day and we are the ones 'murdering' them? Show me an Iraqi oil rig that is in control of the Us Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Marines. You can't. WE aren't in control of anything related to an oil rig. WE aren't pumping it out of the ground and sending it straight to the US. WE aren't in control of how much is produced. IF we were, why are our oil prices still high?

Oh, what's that? They wouldn't be killing each if we weren't there? Really. Read your history about people killing each other in Iraq for the past hundred and fifty years and further, then tell me I'm full of it. Oh, but wait! A world study says we have caused the death of over 600,000 Iraqis! Really? Cause the morgues don't, can't, keep a count. So how do you base the deaths off of an inaccurate count at the morgues? Easy. Take a ten year old census, don't factor in an accurate rate of population growth, and declare your info absolutely accurate. That's how you pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of the world population too stupid to think for itself.

I don't believe in man made global warming. It's all political BS. The scientists of the world produced a study that said 'it's very likely" man caused it. Why didn't they say we 'definitely' caused it? Cause they can't prove one shred of it. They guesstimate and make 'educated' answers that get them additional funding to find out 'why?'. If they could prove it they would, but they spout BS to make themselves a case to acquire more money for their research. They can show you a warming trend of the earth for the past couple hundred years, but they can't show you what happened with temperature swings back in King Tuts' day can they? No. So they can somehow devise that with a very small pool of data, we are destroying the earth with 'fossil' fuels, or CO2 emissions? What happened to the other thousands of years of heating and cooling of the earth naturally? Did it all of the sudden become irrelevant? They are out for research money to line their pockets with, not do real science. The hole in the ozone is a bum argument as well. They show you the hole during the winter cycles of the north and south pole. Why? Cause SUNLIGHT is one of the main ingredients for ozone. They never embellish that fact do they? That's so they can fool people into thinking Krylon spray paint is making a hole in the atmosphere 10,00 miles away. Real smart these scientists are, I don't believe them one bit.

I do think that we should try and clean up our act, don't get me wrong. I recycle, drive a somewhat fuel efficient truck (not for the earth but cause I don't like stopping to fill up alot nor do I want to pay outrageous gas prices). But all this BS about man made global warming is a sham. Gasoline doesn't cause it, the earth and the sun do it every day 12 on, 12 off. One thing I REALLY wish we would put a stop to is cutting down trees without replacing them. I'm a big fan of paper products, but we should make tree 'farms' more common. I like trees!

[vs331]

Hey Ray you are this forum's O'reilly.. ur posts puts "the factor" to shame

[Mikey_s]

Evidently I missed a few posts before the ssystem reminded me this thread had updated....

Back to business!

Giancarlo; your pirate graph fascinates me... the x-axis in particular, I can't make head or tale of what the graph purports to show (the point of graphs is that the axes are supposed to go in the same direct.. so why is the first point 35k, then 40k, the 20k and down to 17... it ain't even logarithmic... and the point labels go 20, 40, 20, 40 years... but in any case it makes a nice picture.

I tried to look at the article you referenced, but didn't find it (broken link),. in any case Science is a reputable journal.

A number of issues flop out from the thread since I last looked;

- Climate science is very complex; Personally i'm not expert in this area, but I do take an interest in it. I find it implausible that a tiny fraction of the atmos can have such a profound (and rapid) effect on global temperature, but a lot of science is based on correlation and the consensus of lots of eminent scientists is that the climate is changing. The real question is what to do about it. (sorry I don't have the answer yet!)

- STOP blaming the oil companies and START switching lights off and walking more; it ain't them, it's YOU!

- keep the debate going on a factual basis, and keep emotions out of it (even if we are all doomed!!)

, and the pedant in me couldn't stop me from correcting an inaccuracy here;

I know in Iraq...they still used uranium coated bullets to pierce the armor plated cars and other hard metals

The depleted uranium goes inside the bullets... it's very dense, but not very hard, so they put a nice hard shell around a VERY heavy piece of metal to give it more clout when it hits a pice of armour.

[joseff]

Actually depleted uranium is used for aerodynamic reasons... it's very dense thus resulting in a slimmer round, hence it doesn't lose much energy to drag en route to the target.

Is it legal to use as F1 ballast?

[Ciro Pabón]

Giancarlo; your pirate graph fascinates me...
...
I tried to look at the article you referenced, but didn't find it (broken link),. in any case Science is a reputable journal.

Mikey_s: sigh... I gave the link on my previous post. I don't have the slightest clue why Giancarlo copied it wrong. Please (I already begged you), read it. He argues that its validity is doubted by a site that claims that global warming is a myth and that the real problem is a future "Ice Age", if I get it right...

Study on scientific consensus on global warming by Science Magazine: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

The pirate graph is a JOKE devised to show that, without a peer reviewed theory, any "I told you so" theory is non-scientific. I know you understand that proposition easily. Please, read what I wrote about it on my previous post.

Nor do I know anyone in MY vast network of Marine Corps and Army buddies that were issued any. They did use them in the early part of the war, but they aren't now.

You should talk with Abrams M1 Tank gunners, Ray.

The KE rounds use a high length over diameter ratio subcaliber projectile with a depleted uranium (DU) fin-stabilized rod as the penetrator element.

They are used against tanks. Mmmmm... I wonder why they don't use them any more against the tanks the insurgents could have.

The absence of effort to put Iraqui oil industry back is one of the causes of the producer's stronghold on prices.

[G-Rock]

Does anyone have any data on how many tonnes of CO2 get pumped into the air every year from human activity?

If you could compare that to what a big volcano would spew out then maybe we could make a correlation between whether global warming is a man made problem or not. (Remember how Mt St Helen affected the earths climate in the early eighties?)

As you can see by the number of arguments on either side of this debate, all of these facts, graphs, correlations are to easy to manipulate to make whatever point you have seem credible.

We need to simplify the debate. So many tonnes get pumped into the air, so then how many tonnes get absorbed? Leave global warming out of it. It's like religion, you can never prove or disprove it.

Here in Canada, the anti global warming types are now chuckling to themselves because it's 15 degrees colder than usual. Only a month ago, Canada experienced it's warmest Dec/Jan in I don't know how long which gave fuel to the fire to the pro global warming theorists. I'm getting tired of it!

I agree that there is a finite amount of oil out there and that it will be used up whether we like it or not. It's a basic law of supply/demand. If we find an alternative energy source that is competitive with todays oil price, then demand for oil with drop - price of oil will drop, making oil more competitive then the alternative energy source again. It's always going to be that way until the reserves of oil are depleted to the point where the price of oil can only go up due to decreased supply. Only then will alternative energy sources remain competitive.

This is where governments need to take a leadership role. The only solution I see is to tax the oil to pay for balancing the CO2 emissions/absorbtion. All sources of pollution need to be taxed. We pay for garbage pickup through are taxes right?

What we are doing now is dumping our garbage on the curb, arguing to our neighbours that garbage is a natural occurence in nature, and hoping that the wind, or some future generation will take care of it, all because we don't want to inconvience ourselves or pay to clean up our way of life.

[Mikey_s]

Ciro,

please accept my apologies, I evidently was not paying attention! I somehow managed to miss your post and moved straight onto Giancarlo's - all the more surpirsing because I normally read your posts more closely than most others!

I took a look at the article in Science, it is interesting, although I'll take some more time to follow up some of the references (although the first one was the New York Times... I'm not so sure if that really falls under the "peer reviewed", or even "reputable" journal status!!).

The author tells us that concensus of the scientists is that human activity is changing the climate. In fact it would be surprising if that were not the case, we chop down trees, we burn fossil fuels and we alter the landscape so that it absorbs more heat energy by building (amongst other things) towns, cities ... and roads!. What is not said in the article, and is likely more difficult to identify, is the relative contribution of human influence versus natural, or at least non-human influence.

Also please acept my apologies for falling into your pirate trap... I clearly recall a prof at my university showing us a fantastic correlation between heart disease and tv set ownership... a correlation is one thing, having a hypothesis and testing it is quite aonther - spot on as usual with your comment about models!

@Rock;

Does anyone have any data on how many tonnes of CO2 get pumped into the air every year from human activity?

I think that is missing the point somewhat; the fact is that the anthropogenic emissions are in addition to those of nature (but I'll look for the figures in any case)

@Rock again;

Here in Canada, the anti global warming types are now chuckling to themselves because it's 15 degrees colder than usual. Only a month ago, Canada experienced it's warmest Dec/Jan in I don't know how long which gave fuel to the fire to the pro global warming theorists. I'm getting tired of it!

... be careful, don't confuse weather with climate! Weather is local, climate is global, but it is a common misconception.

I agree that there is a finite amount of oil out there and that it will be used up whether we like it or not. It's a basic law of supply/demand. If we find an alternative energy source that is competitive with todays oil price, then demand for oil with drop - price of oil will drop, making oil more competitive then the alternative energy source again. It's always going to be that way until the reserves of oil are depleted to the point where the price of oil can only go up due to decreased supply. Only then will alternative energy sources remain competitive.

This is a good point, i have argued for some time (slightly heretically given that I work for an oil major!) that Nuclear power is so expensive because you have to lock the waste up for ever (effectively). If you had to do that for CO2 (or better yet leave the carbon in the ground!) then the cost equation might be a little more equal, if not completely the other way round.

Interestingly I read recently that BP are proposing a Hydrogen fired powere station in UK - the model apparently goes something like; convert the natural gas to hydrogen and CO2 (use the heat to generate steam to generate electricity) and then burn the hydrogen to do the same; water is the only emission, the CO2 is collected and stuck back down the hole of an oil well; thereby keeping the well pressure up, recovering more oil/gas and so on...

Sounds great doesn't it? Oh hang on, the government is also evaluating other options... there's the problem!!

Ho humm...

[Ciro Pabón]

Finally!

This comes directly from the White House, in my opinion to try to "put some spin" on the public relations problem posed by the IPCC report (you can add one vote to this poll! )

USA Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, last Wednesday:

"As the president has said, and this [IPCC] report makes clear, human activity is contributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."

Of the IPCC report specifically, Bodman said, "We're very pleased with it. We're embracing it. We agree with it."

We have here a true convert. Of course, they aren't changing policy - don't be innocent! - they are merely changing rhetoric:

"There is a concern within this administration ... that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country may lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad to a country that does not have such a carbon cap. ... You would have the U.S. economy damaged."

I'll add: "... if U.S. economy was not already so damaged to begin with.".

I'd love to hear the rethorical acrobatics and the linguistic contortions "O'Reilly types" will have to make about Mr. Bodman words. Probably they will insist they agreed all the time, if I have the slightest idea about how their mind works...

[joseff]

@Rock again;

Here in Canada... it's 15 degrees colder than usual.

... be careful, don't confuse weather with climate! Weather is local, climate is global, but it is a common misconception.

The figure oft quoted in "global warming" claims is rise in average surface temperature, so for example BC could be colder but the arctic is totally de-iced. It would still be global warming if the average surface temperature is up.

I agree that there is a finite amount of oil out there and that it will be used up whether we like it or not. It's a basic law of supply/demand.

Ah, me and Ciro have crossed several times over this subject. My opinion is that we're far from seeing the end of oil. The western majors are running out of reserves, with most of the remaining oil being in places like Africa and Russia, with nationalized oil industries locking out the westerners. They then go into long-term stable bilateral commitments with another country (china, perhaps?) cutting out the majors completely.

The good news is, the world is not running out of oil. The bad news is, the world is not running out of oil. There's enough down there to turn the whole planet into a sauna.

...Nuclear power is so expensive because you have to lock the waste up for ever (effectively).

Not exactly. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to produce more fissile material, but the reprocessing plant can also be used to produce weapons-grade fissiles. Throw in some proliferation/terrorism issues, and bingo! You have the perfect excuse to not use nuclear power.

There are many types of perfectly feasible nuclear reactor, including my favorite, the Thorium cycle reactor using fuel extracted from coal. The current atmosphere of paranoia is stifling adoption, not technical issues.

[Ciro Pabón]

All right, joseff, let's cross our pens again... En garde!

Well, I don't say we are at oil's end, even if I gave that title to my first post on the subject: we could be at oil's peak.

The first phrase (end) means that we have no more oil (I don't agree with that proposition).

The second (peak production) means that prices of oil will increase exponentially during our lifetime, because of the form of the "supply/demand" curve (ask any economist). I think that the second position could be true.

Even if there is a lot of oil to discover (contradicting the experiences of the individual countries), most of it is (probably!) under sea. North Sea "new" oil costs U$50 per barrel to extract, roughly speaking. Mexican Gulf oil (deeper waters) costs U$100 per barrel. No "recycling" involved.

I fought hardly during the study our national agency did back in the 90's for the second position to be hold "officially": we've reached our peak. A lot of people said then that simply we were not exploring enough: almost 15 years later, the predictions came true AND in the expected time frame.

C'mon, if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and it seems a duck... probably it's a duck. I repeat my mantra: "don't give me opinions, give me numbers".

Nowadays, everybody conccurs: fortunately we built the natural gas infrastructure (we have natural gas for 20 years) BEFORE oil doubled its price, while we were exporting it, so we could afford it.

Colombia cannot afford to import oil without breaking our national payment balance.

Fortunately, I repeat, the guys down here were easier to convince than some of you... or maybe we were lucky, I don't know.

Yes, we have a huge submarine platform practically inexplored: I believe it will remain so for eternity (hopefully). We can be smarter than the guys at the "Exxon Valdez" in the movie "SeaWorld" (remember the blind guy taking care of the last drops in that ship?), don't you think?

I'm fighting again to be prepared for global warming, even if Colombia is one of the countries of the world with more water per capita (or simply put, with more water). Check your country's supply, it's all I say. Mark my words, I might not live to see it, but I have the sensation that at the middle of this centuries wars will be for the Rio Grande water, if my crystal ball is clear and my tin-foil hat is protecting my brain as usual...

Anyway, on thread, if those that apparently defended the White House opinion have changed their minds, in view of Mr. Bodman new radical position, the future is not bleak: oil at U$100 per barrel means that almost ALL alternatives become feasible. C'mon, this means more work for us, more possibilities!

This does not mean that car has to be ugly, cramped or underpowered, quite the contrary! Look at what Toyota has presented recently:



I quote the article: "Imagine having a car that is much faster than a Porsche, Mercedes AMG and any M series car from BMW and still cost 1/4 the price!"

Please, take that with a grain of salt! The site is called "Trendpimp"...

I also want to quote the first two of the "Ten ways to prepare for a post-oil society", in the improbable case I haven't exahusted your patience or the site's hard disks (underscores and smilies are mine)...

"1. Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow ---). They are at the heart of the problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common activities of daily life.

2. We have to produce food differently. The Monsanto/Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and will require more human labor (my comment: try not to expell all latinos before this happens!). The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally. This situation presents excellent business and vocational opportunities for America's young people (if they can unplug their Ipods long enough to pay attention.) It also presents huge problems in land-use reform. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and skill for doing these things has to be painstakingly retrieved from the dumpster of history. Get busy."

[joseff]

Ciro, for the nth time, for heaven's sake, I have to disagree with you...

The Toyota is fugly. This is non-negotiable.

[Carlos]

G- Rock Your post of Feb 7th asked about the average "carbon load" - in a column from the Canadian newspaper - The National Post - a column discussing the idea of a of a personal carbon credit trading system cited 15 CO2 metric tons for an adult with a family home commuting to work. alone in a vehicle as 15 metric tons. The article did not offer a basis for the accuracy of this figure. The Post article, from memory, was published in the last 10>14 days. The article detailed a possible plan of purchase and trading between citizens just as Kyoto proposes carbon credit trading between nations. It was suggested as a concrete method to effectively compel people to reduce CO2 air pollution rather than just talking about it in an earnest manner with neighbours, dates or while out for a drink at their favourite bar. A do what you say policy.

[Ciro Pabón]

Ciro, for the nth time, for heaven's sake, I have to disagree with you...

The Toyota is fugly. This is non-negotiable.

All right, all right, I got it...

[joseff]

Well IMVHO the Toyota sports car isn't a solution to our oil/CO2 problem. That's like dropping a Harrier/RX motor into a Supra. By Toyota standards, that's hardly innovative.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to see the Toyomaha motor from the Celica/Elise in a hybrid system, in a car the size and weight of the original 2000GT? Throw in a plug-in charger to sweeten the deal.

If Toyota (or any automaker) is really serious about pollution and conservation, let's see the stuff from the Aichi '05 Expo. Good for Zap and Tesla for keeping them honest.