It has become increasing clear that the oil is running out, in five years time the average commuter will not be able to afford to drive to work in a fossil fuel powered vehicle.

Global warming is therefore a sham, if increased CO2 emissions are affecting climate change, and there has been no global warming for ten years, then the emissions from vehicles will end in about five years time. So it will end, the CO2 will slowly get washed out of the atmosphere.

What would make sense from a ‘New World Order’ perspective is to make a long term problem a focus of short term policy to make us change as a matter of expediency for our grandchildren (therefore no panic), when in reality it is for this generation, because there is no more oil.

But its not just CO2 from oil which is fueling climate change, what about all the coal and gas which is also burnt in powerstations? Not to mention that produced by deforestation (both directly and indirectly) and all the other sources.

You can't say that global is a sham just because one of the causes is 'running out', even if all the fossil fuels did run out in the next decade the washing out process you talk about would still take time to take effect and proceed and there would still be dramatic effects on the climate while this took place and returned to its 'normal' level. Plus im sure we would just be able to find something else equally as damaging to burn to feed our lifestyles.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter whether global warming is a myth or not. Fossil fuels are not a limitless resource so alternatives must be found, because we need massive energy use to support anything like the population levels the planet has now.

quote:

Originally posted by The original Clark:
Global warming is therefore a sham, if increased CO2 emissions are affecting climate change, and there has been no global warming for ten years, then the emissions from vehicles will end in about five years time. So it will end, the CO2 will slowly get washed out of the atmosphere.

What would make sense from a ‘New World Order’ perspective is to make a long term problem a focus of short term policy to make us change as a matter of expediency for our grandchildren (therefore no panic), when in reality it is for this generation, because there is no more oil.

No global warming?? Where the link? It's a pretty poor show to turn an environmental issue inot a conspiracy theory. Another Exxon paid poster in disguise?

From everything I've seen, Co2 from industrialisation has not created warming: in fact, earth was in a period of cooling in the second half of the 1900's, which is strange when you consider that the post-war years saw the greatest increase in industrialisation in our planet's history!

One of the world's chief scientists, who has been studying artic conditions for the last 30 years is on record as saying that there is nothing abnormal about the way the artic is behaving, but yet we constantly see news crews there showing us pictures of ice melt. I often wonder if people have forgotten that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg: and that was before cars were the principle form of transport in any country!

Clark makes a very valid point and shows just how irresponsible governments around the world are being. I remember being in Canada a few years back and chatting to a buddy there who keeps himself very well informed on such issues. He said then that once the over-estimation of oil reserves became known that governments around the world would suddenly make global warming (which was then largely the preserve of groups like Greenpeace, but was just coming out into the political realm) a real big issue, but that they would twist it to suit their fears about oil running out. He wasn't far wrong!

I heard a story that cows belching creates more green-house gas (methane) than all the cars on our planet and after release of Co2 from our oceans (the principle source of Co2 emmissions) this was the main source of current day green-house gas emmissions. I don't know how true that is, but there we go.

I do know that the increases in Co2 emmisions we are seeing now are as a result of a Co2 emmisions from our deep oceans created during a period of warming that occured in the 1200's: ie warming (as a result of annomlies in the amount of solar energy that reaches our planet: cyclical occurances which explains ice-ages etc)creates increased Co2 emmisions, not the other way around.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/wil...g/article2080497.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry...s/article2051253.ece

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry...s/article2049506.ece


Didnt have to look far, but then I keep up with the news.


Spot on Clarkey. The recent report to which the above links refer spells it out in quite frank terms. While it might just be doom-mongering, there are some valid points made. While I dont think we will ever 'run out' of oil, the viability of an oil based economy is in question. I cant see the demand for oil decreasing anytime soon, while supply of easily (read cheaply) extractable oil is probably already at its peak.
But of course its all about global warming, innit? Before the 'greens' (LOL) get started, to me its makes more sense to invest in alternative energy sources while we can, for reasons of national security more than anything - civilisation being 4 meals away from anarchy and all that. Oh, and focus on the other dangers to the environment from pollution by phosphates, nitrates, heavy metals and the like. The carbon argument is a busted flush.

How many times over recent decades have they predicted oil will run out now?

I accept it will at some point, but not before we've pumped it out of all the most difficult places previously rejected as too costly in the past. I suspect there is plenty left to be discovered. It will just cost more to get it out. Same with all the other fossil fuels.

Personally I think AGW is no longer a scientific argument.

It's one of social engineering on both sides and the Internet rumour machine is playing a very big role in it. Meanwhile, if AGW is real and is catastrophic as I believe it is, it will be too late for us to whine later.

We are simply just too selfish to control our breeding in a World that says everyone must have the right to consume and waste.

I guess at this point, it doesn't matter whether we believe in AGW or not. Eitherway, fossil fuels are going to run out and biofuels are potentially more harmful than good.

At the end of the day, we can't keep making the green lobby into the conspiracy and keep on consuming and polluting even if AGW doesn't exist.

Mark

I don't think anyone is saying that oil is "running out": but merely that estimations of reserves are less than anticipated. By reserves I presume it is meant oil in existing fields or the amounts of oil in fields that companies already have rights over.

I have read however that production of North Sea Oil is reaching the end of it's viable extraction-rate. This would have consequences for the British government as revenues from North Sea Oil started to dwindle and I think that this is part of the issue. But if reserves are running out and it will be more costly to extract new sources of oil, this too will have an effect on government revenues: as the price of oil increases as a result of higher costs of production, so the tax to consumers would have to fall: we all remember how the farmers and hauliers almost brought Britain to it's knees over the price of fuel. Rumours since suggest if the dispute hadn't ended when it did, it could have brought the government down.

On the subject of alternatives: how do we know that these are not going to have an effect on climate? Eon (a Spanish company) boasts it is building the largest off-shore wind farm off the British coast. But how do we know that such a large concentration of wind turbines isn't going to have a negative environmental affect? Winds create weather and if these winds are interupted by such farms, could this not affect localised (or even wider) weather patterns? One only has to look at the dramatic effects on other parts of our coastline of attempts to curb the force of the seas on some beaches to understand that you can't interupt natural cycles without consequence. I am sure I don't need to mention the resource costs and costs of prodcution of wind turbines for anyone to see that they are hardly green.

Alternative energy is already a multi-billion pound industry in the UK alone and a good source of exports to less-developed nations. I contract to such a company so I should know! I know for sure that the costs of installation of such equipment alone far outweigh any benefits: as people have to produce more to earn the money to pay for such high-cost alternative energy sources: which defeats the object! When such sources are installed they are actually rarely used and fossil fuels still provide 90% (or more) of the energy requirements in the commercial sector in new buildings despite it now being a planning requirement in London to have such sources: funny how no government or London Corporation department has been set up to ensure the implementation and control of these new energy sources despite the requirement under planning???? I wonder how such controls are going to be expanded under Mr Brown's new planning bill?

If you then look at the new craze of carbon offsetting, you see that this is actually a means of creating increased wealth in previously largely unindustrialised areas (to provide future export markets) that will actually have a detrimental affect on future carbon emmisions.

Taken as a whole, if one looks beyond the oil debate one very quickly sees that the whole Global Warming issue is actually a means to create new markets and increase production generally: a non-tax method of directly influencing increased GDP which can then be taxed: in exactly the same way immegration has being used by the current UK government for the last ten years. Very subtle! Increased wealth creates increased demand for high-end goods and services (all of which are vatable) and the story continues in a never-ending spiral of increased GDP which brings increased taxes.

And people think they are doing a good thing by listening to the Global Warming issue! If governments were truly concerned about warming they wouldn't be going down the routes they are today: especially the carbon offsetting route.

quote:

Originally posted by The original Clark:
It has become increasing clear that the oil is running out, in five years time the average commuter will not be able to afford to drive to work in a fossil fuel powered vehicle.

Why?

To King Arthur.

Interesting long post. Here's a long response.

Yes, it's new markets and no doubt our emerging attempt to corner them as we lose out in more traditional markets to India and China. High tech and not least alternative energy is the only way the West can hope to compete in the future global economy and I don't argue against the cynical slant you put on it.

Every big business wants to show their green credentials for PR purposes but they don't generally give a damn beyond the token effort due to all the fud over the reality of AGW in wider society. Nevertheless, it's sexy to at least appear green. I understand that.

I'm not so sure about the problems of wind farms. If there is more energy in the weather due to GW then absorbing it seems like a good idea even with the huge outlay. I don't see too much evidence of environmental impact apart from the visual/noise aspect.

Carbon offsetting seems like a very clever attempt to physically link GW action into the the world of trade. Sure, in practice the implementation may be at risk of abuse but that it something that can be worked on over time. I still don't see a better alternative.

My problem with GW as AGW has always been that of the real root cause hardly any politician wants to discuss, overpopulation. As I see it we have a choice. End up living miserable human choked lives fighting over the right to consume or sacrifice our right to overbreed and once again enjoy moderately wasteful lives. The former is unsustainable regardless of green initiatives.

The latter is the only way, and it beggars belief that in 2007 we are all still only talking about living greener as if it will make any difference to our net output while the runaway monster that is overpopulation goes on unchecked.

Oil is not running out. We have at the very minimum 100 years or more supply but what is happening is the oil wells are being capped. No new refineries are being built and essentially the oil companies are doing the 1970's OPEC thing all over again to limit supply in order to jack up the price. In Iran petrol is sold at 2p per gallon, we pay more obviously and if in any doubt about how Global Warming is affecting their profits you might like to see what their profits are like. It's their payback for supporting the GW scam.

Carbon credits, biofuels, green tax may all be a scam but GW is very much real and on our doorstep. And the real issue is, we are releasing ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere without the planet having the ability to soak it up. It is folly to think it doesn't matter.

This right wing agenda of muddying the real issue of GW is only delaying action.

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
Carbon credits, biofuels, green tax may all be a scam but GW is very much real and on our doorstep. And the real issue is, we are releasing ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere without the planet having the ability to soak it up. It is folly to think it doesn't matter.

This right wing agenda of muddying the real issue of GW is only delaying action.

If I had a penny for all the times somebody tried to blame all the ills of life on the political opinion he, she or it opposed, I would be a multi-billionnaire by now.

I might be tempted to say that your post is not surprising since those on the left are not sufficiently intelligent to cope with anything other than simple concepts conveniently divested of harsh realities. But I'm not that mean.

Equally, it would be more intelligent to accept that issues like climate change are immensely complex and multi-dimensional. They are not easily understood in terms of faddish, media-lite, campaigning sloganism. Sometimes, a simple slogan is a useful political tool; but if it were to mean that we expended a lot of money on a 'solution' to global warming that proved on mature reflection to be a complete waste of time, that indeed would be criminal.

I don't know whether that is a 'right' wing or a 'left' wing point of view and frankly I don't care.

quote:

Originally posted by Bertie70:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
Carbon credits, biofuels, green tax may all be a scam but GW is very much real and on our doorstep. And the real issue is, we are releasing ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere without the planet having the ability to soak it up. It is folly to think it doesn't matter.

This right wing agenda of muddying the real issue of GW is only delaying action.

If I had a penny for all the times somebody tried to blame all the ills of life on the political opinion he, she or it opposed, I would be a multi-billionnaire by now.

I might be tempted to say that your post is not surprising since those on the left are not sufficiently intelligent to cope with anything other than simple concepts conveniently divested of harsh realities. But I'm not that mean.

Equally, it would be more intelligent to accept that issues like climate change are immensely complex and multi-dimensional. They are not easily understood in terms of faddish, media-lite, campaigning sloganism. Sometimes, a simple slogan is a useful political tool; but if it were to mean that we expended a lot of money on a 'solution' to global warming that proved on mature reflection to be a complete waste of time, that indeed would be criminal.

I don't know whether that is a 'right' wing or a 'left' wing point of view and frankly I don't care.

It took thirty years for scientist to convince there's global warming ia most probably caused by human activity. Now the sceptics have accepted it is happening, we find the issue being muddied by half sciences of volcanoes and sun rays.

OF COURSE ITS A COMPLEX AND MULTIDIMENTIONAL ISSUE, that's why it took 30 years of convincing!

But you carry on not caring...

What is the average surface temperature of Earth?