discojoe was correct about the oil spill

[Rick]

Jesus, this load of emotional bullcrap makes me want to agree with discojoe, even if I don't.

What emotions? (and what bullcrap?)

[xerx]

Most scientists would probably agree roughly with Rick about anthropogenic climate change.

Scientists > people on this forum.

[Jimbean]

Most scientists would probably agree roughly with Rick about anthropogenic climate change.

Scientists > people on this forum.

Knowledge of opinions of scientists > Jxtes

[Capitalist Pig]

Knowledge of opinions of scientists ≠ Jxtes

fixed

[Jimbean]

fixed

okay thanks.

[xerx]

Interesting. I thought the consensus is as real as the consensus for the molecular weight of Beryllium. Maybe a little less, still > 90-95%. Can you guys link me to a neutral source that disputes that?

I'll put any trust in Wikipedia aside for the moment.
Climate change consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm genuinely curious, because the climate change debate isn't something I've followed.

[silverchris9]

I've heard some legitimate people argue against it, but it's almost as settled as evolution. Of course some people argue against evolution (yes, yes, yes, largely on "ideological grounds" as if there were any grounds that aren't ideological), but the mainstream of the scientific community agrees with evolution totally. So yes the "scientific community" agrees on it as far as the scientific community can agree on anything. There are detractors for everything (hell, there are detractors for gravity, or at least every variant of the general scientific conception thereof).

[discojoe]

[Rick]

Knowledge of opinions of scientists > Jxtes

Knowledge of actual opinions of scientists > Knowledge of supposed opinions of scientists



Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

[Jimbean]

Knowledge of actual opinions of scientists > Knowledge of supposed opinions of scientists



Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

The facts are of utmost importance. Unfortunately I lack confidence in this area to clearly see all of the facts. What you seem to deal with is resource scarcity and human global warming. With regard to both of these, I only have my suspicions to what is going on.

[Jimbean]

Rick, this is a bit off topic, but in my gut I feel that you know things I do not. You seem like a busy person, but I would be interested to see you explain resource scarcity. I only hear of a lot rumors, such as peak oil, or plentiful oil that is being kept at artificial scarcity, for example.

Edit:

I just want your opinion on why the problem is not artificial scarcity and that the data is not misrepresented, as some have charged.

[Rick]

Rick, this is a bit off topic, but in my gut I feel that you know things I do not. You seem like a busy person, but I would be interested to see you explain resource scarcity. I only hear of a lot rumors, such as peak oil, or plentiful oil that is being kept at artificial scarcity, for example.

Edit:

I just want your opinion on why the problem is not artificial scarcity and that the data is not misrepresented, as some have charged.

First of all, it's plainly obvious that nonrenewable resources can be extracted in increasing amounts only up to a certain point, after which extraction must permanently decline. So the question should not be "whether," but "when" the decline will occur. The theory of abiotic oil (naturally replenishing) is almost certainly false.

Oil production has already peaked in dozens of nations, including the U.S. Here's the graph for the U.S. with Hubbert's curve correlating closely to actual data:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rt_US_high.svg

Other past-peak oil producing countries have followed a similar curve. What grounds do we have to suppose that the remaining pre-peak or at-peak countries are somehow exceptions to the rule? If high-EROEI oil is indeed "plentiful," why is the EROEI of oil dropping worldwide anyway? When conservative pundits claim oil is plentiful, they are referring to oil shale and other sources that are uneconomical to extract and might as well be located on Pluto.

From an economic perspective, it makes sense for oil-producing monopolies to limit production somewhat in order to raise prices, but not so much that oil consumers would begin to develop alternative energy sources and stop buying their oil altogether.

So, on the one hand, major oil-producing nations are motivated to generate moderate artificlal scarcity, and on the other hand, to overstate their reserves of accessible oil in order to avoid alarming customers who might otherwise consider switching to other forms of fuel.

You can see this in the big oil companies. Their PR machines fund climate change and Peak Oil denial, they publicly advocate empty positions like "increasing efficiency rather than trying to give up fossil fuels" and naturally oppose any sort of carbon tax, but in their back rooms they are building strategies to deal with oil scarcity and a changing energy future in a resource-constrained world.

[xerx]

Knowledge of actual opinions of scientists > Knowledge of supposed opinions of scientists



Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Creepy-male]

Most scientists would probably agree roughly with Rick about anthropogenic climate change.

Scientists > people on this forum.

Lol not me that's actually my field of study, I've only 1 semester to go before I get a degree in science/engineering. But by no means does that mean I'm an expert on the specific topic of global warming, but I can easily explain the actual science behind it and technical aspects that most people are completely ignorant to .

[jughead]

global warming has little to do with artificial scarcity of oil. Artificial scarcity of oil will help stall global warming however. But I seriously don't think oil producing countries give a fuck in regards to artificial scarcity, they get more money that way. I am most likely to believe Iraq was invaded because of the Saddam played too much with the oil markets and fucked up the price/supply to dangerous levels(doesn't mean it wasnt stupid). Price oil is 3x since invasion and record oil profits now that saddam cant play with the market.

At least rick appears smart next to you hollow tards who may be the same person.
I'm tired of you bullshit arguments that give no facts and information of your own, claiming the global warming "hoax" and capitalism propaganda as well the red herrings. Convince ME its NOT real or bullshit. Provide me with the real data behind "hear of a lot rumors, such as peak oil, or plentiful oil that is being kept at artificial scarcity, for example." If you actually don't know shit stop posting garbage disguised as truth and fact.

In regards to the oil spilll oh they lied hah what a suprise, and and what about the oil disperants that they overused? Exon valdez is still being cleaned up.