Oil.

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:21 am

problem lies in that no one truly knows whats going to happen if we keep fucking over the natural resources of our planet, the weathe risn't that predictable yet, and its true we could be going through a natural shift in our planets weather pattern, we are over due for a polar flip. personnally i think we should move on the edge of caution, cause if we irreversibly fuck up this planet its not like we have a spare we can all move to. and i think anyone who doesn't agree with this statement is a moron.

if we actually have more trees now then before because of this 40% faster growth then usage, why is CO2 levels supposedly raising...

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:21 am

Peter:

Main Entry: antidisestablishmentarianism
Function: noun
Definition: originally, opposition to the disestablishment of the Church of England, now opposition to the belief that there should no longer be an official church in a country

...

Anyway, I've thought it through and more or less resolved in my mind that while it will likely be a difficult transition for humanity, it's not likely to be nearly as staggering as many would make it seem (given that it'll be relatively gradual, not just an abrupt, right-this-instant loss of oil). Certainly it's not likely to be the end or near-end of civilization. Incidentally (since it hadn't come up in the thread in SciPhi), does anyone happen to know the energy efficiencey of the ConAgra plant? As in, how much energy does it take to make the oil, and so is it actually a viable source of energy or just another way to 'store' energy like Hydrogen?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 5:25 pm

[quote="Nekra";p="395312"]problem lies in that no one truly knows whats going to happen if we keep fucking over the natural resources of our planet, the weathe risn't that predictable yet,[/quote]
And yet you put faith in the predictions for 50 and 100 years from now? Tsk, tsk.

personnally i think we should move on the edge of caution, cause if we irreversibly fuck up this planet its not like we have a spare we can all move to. and i think anyone who doesn't agree with this statement is a moron.

So much for debate. If you want to be taken seriously, you can start by leaving out the ad hominem attacks. How about basing things on real science instead?

It will be interesting to see what happens with the average global temperatures for this summer. California's summer has been unexpectedly mild, as has much of the United States. I think Europe's is a lot better than last year's, since there are no stories of hundreds of elderly dying of heat exhaustion. What will the global warmers say if this year's temps have actually gone down?

if we actually have more trees now then before because of this 40% faster growth then usage, why is CO2 levels supposedly raising...

Because we still produce more CO2 than can be consumed by plants.

BillyBlaze · Post by **BillyBlaze** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:16 pm

Have studies by independant scientists been done of the existing TDP plants?

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:43 pm

What kind of studies?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 4:30 am

[quote="Nekra";p="393924"]screw the fact that all the evidence points to the fact that global warming is happening and that the excessive amounts of fossil fuels and pollution we release every day is just quickening the effect.[/quote]

Notice how the graph wavers immediately after World War II, during a period of massive industrial growth and the accompanying air polution? Yeah. That rather conclusively proves that global temperatures are in no way tied to human emissions.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:40 pm

Incase anyone still cares, heres the thread that really got into alternate forms of energy and the true nature of oil. I was wondering where the hell it went when it recently got a fresh jolt of life pumped into it.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 3:31 pm

Salvation122, the batteries in my sarcasm meter are dead. Can you tell me if you were being sarcastic in the text part of your post, or what?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:26 pm

No, I'm being serious. If you look at it, it actually goes down right on 1950. There's also no sharp increase in the mid 1930s, when everyone began increasing industrialized production for war. There's no reason to believe that we have much of an effect at all on the environment.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 5:49 pm

Az, I just wanted to use a big word. And you know you want to, too.

tankkisankari · Post by **tankkisankari** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:02 pm

Salvation122: which curve do you want to highlight? The original Mann curve, or the infamously false M&M curve, both however seem to prove your point in the picture.

Real Life Forums

Oil.

Who is online