The Earth was created a touch under 6,000 years ago, too! A few geologists out of tens of thousands, plus some random guys on the internet told me so!

Actually, I'm pretty certain that the Earth, and indeed the entire universe, didn't exist until somewhere around October 23, 1973. Perhaps a little later, records that far back are hazy.

Human involvement in global warming:  The most utterly irrelevent argument in the whole of environmental issues and politics.

As JimBob has pointed out before (maybe not here yet, but on RPGnet that I recall), it really doesn't matter.  The kinds of things that we can do to reduce any human influence on global climate change also have a lot of other positive effects on things like pollution, reliance on fossil fuels of limited supply, economy, plus, there's a certain sense that a little caution wouldn't be a bad idea until we find out for certain whether we're burning off our own atmosphere and dooming the entire race to boiling off into space, yanno?

It's a red herring.  Not worth arguing about, and largely politically motivated.  The left likes it because it's a nice and doom-and-gloom prognosis and thus an easier sell, and the right likes it because by trying to discredit it and make a big deal out of it, they can get the public to casually ignore all the other environmental issues involved.  "Dennis Miller told me global warming is fake, so I'm driving my SUV all I want!"

Well, I do think global warming is a BIG thing to worry about, and should be worried about - and acted on.

But even if the burning of billions of tonnes of fossil fuels had, for some magical reason, no effect at all on the global climate, we should still cut down and eventually eliminate burning of fossil fuels, simply because they are finite. They're going to run out.

Whether that's in one year or ten years or a hundred isn't the main issue - the main issue is that they'll run out. And our current civilisation absolutely requires them.

Now, if you know that you're going to be sacked from your job, what do you do? Well, you want an income, so you look for a new job! Suppose you don't know exactly when you'll be sacked? It might be a month, might be a year - maybe twenty years. The only certainty is that you'll be sacked. So you go looking for another one, right? You find another source of income - right now. Why not wait until you're sacked? Well, because it takes time to find a new job, transfer over - maybe you'll have to move house, too, or get a new car to travel the distance - your life is changing, you want that change to be as painless as possible, right? And not to have even one day without any income, right?

And it's easier to get a new job when you've already got a job, right? When you're completely without a job, you tend to be a bit desperate and make some bad job choices.

Likewise, with our civilisation. Our energy source is the money of our comfortable modern industrial civilisation. Without the energy, it all falls apart. It's easier to plan for the change of source of energy now, than when it actually does run out.

It's not that global warming is unimportant, or not happening. It's happening, and it's important. It's just that even if it weren't happening, we'd want to do the same thing - find and use new and renewable sources of energy.

So, back to the job - if you knew you were going to be sacked some day, then the arguments about whether or not the job was actually good for your health wouldn't seem so important. Most people agree this particular job is bad for you - gives you fever. A few out of tens of thousands, plus a few random strangers on the internet, argue that in fact your fever's caused by soemthing else, or there's no fever at all, etc. Fact is, though, if you're at work and you've just been told you'll be sacked some day, that you're feeling a bit feverish isn't the most important thing to you, is it?

The stuff will run out. The US General Accounting Office says so (pdf). The US Army Corps of Engineers says so (large pdf), and says,
   "energy consumption is indispensable to our standard of living and a necessity for the Army to carry out its mission. However, current trends are not sustainable. The impact of excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may undermine the very culture and activities it supports. There is no perfect energy source; all are used at a cost."
If the US Army Corps of Engineers says so, that's good enough for me.

Again: global warming exists, and is an horrific danger which will likely cause, directly and indirectly, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the coming century. But even if burning fossil fuels gave us all vitamin C and a perfect climate, still we should reduce and eliminate fossil fuel use. If we're going to have to stop one day anyway, better to make it a gradual and planned changed which we can adjust to, than a sudden and unplanned change which fucks us up badly.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, I do think global warming is a BIG thing to worry about, and should be worried about - and acted on.

But even if the burning of billions of tonnes of fossil fuels had, for some magical reason, no effect at all on the global climate, we should still cut down and eventually eliminate burning of fossil fuels, simply because they are finite. They're going to run out.

Whether that's in one year or ten years or a hundred isn't the main issue - the main issue is that they'll run out. And our current civilisation absolutely requires them.

Now, if you know that you're going to be sacked from your job, what do you do? Well, you want an income, so you look for a new job! Suppose you don't know exactly when you'll be sacked? It might be a month, might be a year - maybe twenty years. The only certainty is that you'll be sacked. So you go looking for another one, right? You find another source of income - right now. Why not wait until you're sacked? Well, because it takes time to find a new job, transfer over - maybe you'll have to move house, too, or get a new car to travel the distance - your life is changing, you want that change to be as painless as possible, right? And not to have even one day without any income, right?

And it's easier to get a new job when you've already got a job, right? When you're completely without a job, you tend to be a bit desperate and make some bad job choices.

Likewise, with our civilisation. Our energy source is the money of our comfortable modern industrial civilisation. Without the energy, it all falls apart. It's easier to plan for the change of source of energy now, than when it actually does run out.

It's not that global warming is unimportant, or not happening. It's happening, and it's important. It's just that even if it weren't happening, we'd want to do the same thing - find and use new and renewable sources of energy.

So, back to the job - if you knew you were going to be sacked some day, then the arguments about whether or not the job was actually good for your health wouldn't seem so important. Most people agree this particular job is bad for you - gives you fever. A few out of tens of thousands, plus a few random strangers on the internet, argue that in fact your fever's caused by soemthing else, or there's no fever at all, etc. Fact is, though, if you're at work and you've just been told you'll be sacked some day, that you're feeling a bit feverish isn't the most important thing to you, is it?

The stuff will run out. The US General Accounting Office says so (pdf). The US Army Corps of Engineers says so (large pdf), and says,
   "energy consumption is indispensable to our standard of living and a necessity for the Army to carry out its mission. However, current trends are not sustainable. The impact of excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may undermine the very culture and activities it supports. There is no perfect energy source; all are used at a cost."
If the US Army Corps of Engineers says so, that's good enough for me.

Again: global warming exists, and is an horrific danger which will likely cause, directly and indirectly, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the coming century. But even if burning fossil fuels gave us all vitamin C and a perfect climate, still we should reduce and eliminate fossil fuel use. If we're going to have to stop one day anyway, better to make it a gradual and planned changed which we can adjust to, than a sudden and unplanned change which fucks us up badly.

It's a great theory, except that you now have to assign a cost for searching for the new job, and a priority based on how soon you're going to be sacked.

I mean, if I'm going to be sacked in 20 years, do I spend all of my free time looking for a job?  Nope.  The importance and frequency and worry about the cost will change as the 20 years turns to 15, then 10, then 5.  But I'm not going to spend as much time/effort/money on the problem when there's 20 years left as when I have 5, particularly if I have other priorities like my family or gaming even. So whether it's 1 year, or 10 years, or 100 years is precisely the issue.

Which is, if you notice, not to say we shouldn't spend any money/time/effort.  But it's not the largest emergency looming in the next 20 years.

And this doesn't even take into account the last line of the quote you provide: "There is no perfect energy source; all are used at a cost." Which is about as true as it gets.  In the end, a disagreement about priorities gets turned into political rhetoric/partisanship.

My amusement at the fact that JB is taking the US Army Corps of Engineers as a reliable source knows no bounds.

However, I do not find such amusement at the characterization of those who aren't sure if humans are a significant cause of Global Warming as "A few out of tens of thousands, plus a few random strangers on the internet." Now you get around that by including people who don't think GW is happening, but that's just a rhetorical trick. There's a large difference between the two positions. That latter may or may not be whack jobs (only time will tell); those that argue over the significant factors are not "few out of thousands."

And just to put a finer point on it - what if they are?  The fact that you can point to the mean global temperature and show it rising is one thing.  To point at models and say with any certainty they prove human cause is at the very least questionable enough to not be a whack job to dissent.

Well, here we're seeing the classic denials and hedgings.

When I compare it to a job ending in a month, or maybe twenty years, what's the response? "Well if your job's ending in twenty years, so what, plan for it later." Notice how the mind goes straight to the least threatening possibility, which means... we don't have to do anything. Did I give an assessment of the relative chances of when the sacking would happen? Nope. It could have been 99% chance in one month and 1% in twenty years, or 1% in one month and 99% in twenty years - but immediately the focus is on "well that's ages away, so we don't have to do anything." Looking for an excuse to delay or avoid action, without asking for an assessment of the facts - what are the chances of the job ending at this or that time?

The reason to worry about fossil fuels running out, even if it's twenty years from now, is simply that it takes a long time to convert all the systems over. Let's imagine that Jane Eccentric Scientist just invented Perfect Infinite Supply Pollution Free Cheap Energy Source - we'll call it "unobtanium" for short. It takes one working day to convert each vehicle over to its use. There are 700 million vehicles in the USA alone. It'll thus take 700 million working days to convert them all over. There are, Princeton career review tells us 736,000 working auto mechanics in the USA. They work five days a week, with a month off a year - 240 working days. So if all 736,000 of them did nothing else for the time, they could convert every one of the 700 million vehicles in the USA over to the Unobtanium Device in four years. Of course, that would require that the conversion requires no secialist training or equipment, and that no other auto mechanic work at all gets done for four years - this seems unlikely. A more pausible timeframe is 20 years.

That's 20 years to convert over all the vehicles in the USA, assuming this magical Unobtanium Device which can change a car in one single day.

If the Unobtanium Device doesn't exist, if conversions take longer per vehicle, well then we're in trouble. Then there's converting all the power plants and so on. The Hirsch Reort reckons that we'd need 20 years from a decision to do it, to change everything over without substantial troubles. 10 years if we have an all-out, government-centrally-planned, balls-to-the-wall, WWII-style effort.

The conversion time's the real killer. That's because if you wait until you're short of cash to go job-hunting, then it's actually harder to job-hunt. Fossil fuels are probably never going to "run out", as such. We're not going to be drilling one day and the last drop of oil spurts out. What'll happen is that production will decline. That's because as the reservoir is half full, it's harder to get that second half out than it was to get the first half out. So for example, if 2010 is the year of peak production of oil, then in 2030, we'll produce as much as we did in 1990. No big deal?

Well, that "oil shock" of the 1970s - that was a 5% decline in supply to the West - that made oil rpices go up by four times, and caused a recession in the USA. So what about a decline of 10%? 20%?

Oil is to our civilisation today what water is to our bodies. "Oh we just lost 5%." Well, lose 5% of the water in your body, that's 4% of your bodyweight, and you'll be entering hyperthermia and without treatment will die. A small decline in supply has a disproportionately large effect, simply because we rely on it so much.

So if we wait until we're actually feeling the pinch, then we have 20 years of feeing that pinch even more strongly until we sort it out. And that 20 years will probably be longer, since it does in fact take energy to change things over. It's like waiting until you've lost your job and your savings are running out to look for a new home in a new city. You can do it, but it's painful.

And again Skach focuses on minor quibbling points, pretending there's debate where there is none. I suggest a beginning of reading at , but as I said - even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, still, it's gonna run out.

"No, no, there's no problem... we don't have to do anything... no worries..."

There's not doom. The world won't end. But we have to ask ourselves if we want to do something like Sweden and Denmark - pledged to end fossil fuel consumption by 2020 and 2030 respectively, and well on their way to doing it without destroying their lives - or something like the Soviet Union, ignoring signs of trouble and then copping a collapse. Yes, people in the USSR survived its collapse... but it wasn't pleasant.

If a bunch of Eurocommies can do it, we sure as shit can.

But hey, the world was created 6,000 years ago, too, wasn't it? I totally have these scientists who say so. So there's reasonable doubt about it, just like about global warming and peak oil. Totally.

It's interesting that the strongest voices saying that the world isn't warming, and the oil will never run short, are coming from the country producing the most greenhouse gases, consuming the most oil, and... by a strange coincidence, have invaded Iraq and threaten its neighbours. If oil's going to last forever, you have to wonder why the USA is so keen to grab a reliable source of it, the second-largest proven recoverable oil reserves in the world. "There's heaps to go around! Don't worry! Plenty! Nobody worry! But hey, this pile is mine, motherfucker."

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Exploit the Earth in such a way that we can exploit it again tomorrow.

I kind of called JimBob a jerk in another thread, but nonetheless, he's got it absolutely right when it comes to this. There are many and varied issues when it comes to oil production and use, but there's no compelling argument that we shouldn't begin to cut back and seriously implement different energy sources.

Quote from: Thanatos02I kind of called JimBob a jerk in another thread, but nonetheless, he's got it absolutely right when it comes to this. There are many and varied issues when it comes to oil production and use, but there's no compelling argument that we shouldn't begin to cut back and seriously implement different energy sources.

I actually agree with him too.  But he has conflated several issues, and what the OP dealt with was the effort to IMO stifle legitimate debate about the cause of climate change.  

I happen to think that you can say that the climate is changing (which it always has) and have a scientific curiosity as to why without playing politics, such as professionally de-certifying those who disagree with a particular point that is in scientific contention.  

I think that it may very well be that human activity has caused significant climate change on a global level, but if the answer is in and we have a clear understanding of how the climate of the entire fucking Earth actually works, then why the hell are we still spending grant money on this stuff, huh?  Can we really tell so much about the workings of a system that is so large and complex that it boggles the imagination, based on a few centuries (at best) of collected data out of hundreds of millions of years, that no more hard questions need to be asked?  Sounds like hubris to me, which is exactly why we need to have the ability to debate in the scientific community.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut hey, the world was created 6,000 years ago, too, wasn't it? I totally have these scientists who say so. So there's reasonable doubt about it, just like about global warming and peak oil. Totally.

Yeah, because soooo many people here have expressed their belief that the world was created by God 6,000 years ago, the climate isn't changing, and oil will never run out...thank goodness you are here to straighten these scallywags out! :rolleyes:

It really doesn't make your case stronger to resort to such cheap rhetorical tricks, JB.


TGA

Go for it, lads. Keep on burnin' it. In a few years you'll be running short of the stuff anyway, since China's economy and oil consumption is increasing at 9% a year, with India not far behind. At current rates of increase, China's per capita oil consumption will match the USA's in 2033.

Since the USA has 4% the world's population and uses 26% the oil suply (84 million barrels a day worldwide, and now declining) if China uses as much as the USA per capita, they'll need 130% of the world's oil. Hmmm...

Good luck. I'll be alright, my power company uses solar and biomass, and I travel by public transport, which can transport 50 times as many people for the same amount of fuel. But hey, good luck to you! Enjoy more wars in the Middle East. Any of you signing up to secure your country's energy supplies?

What really bothers me about this is that we used to have, what Lincoln called, the "marketplace of ideas" in which anyone could float out any idea and let the people decide about things.  It was a memetic competition that encouraged people to do research, present facts, make cases, etc.

Now we have some groups who decide that they're right, and any competeting ideas should simply be whisked out of the marketplace. Instead of making a case, they just attack the other idea, try to suppress it and crush anyone who tries to advocate it.

That's what the GW advocates are doing: They're not only declaring their idea the better one, they're declaring it the ONLY one and anyone who disagrees is to be silenced.

I don't wanrt the marketplace of ideas to turn into a fucking walmart where one group decides what's on the shelves....

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, here we're seeing the classic denials and hedgings.

Along with the classic "I know better than you" JimBob...

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen I compare it to a job ending in a month, or maybe twenty years, what's the response? "Well if your job's ending in twenty years, so what, plan for it later." Notice how the mind goes straight to the least threatening possibility, which means... we don't have to do anything.

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Which is, if you notice, not to say we shouldn't spend any money/time/effort. But it's not the largest emergency looming in the next 20 years."

For someone who claims such level-headedness, who is constantly telling people it's not black & white, who is persistent about not "ignoring the middle," you sure are providing a panicked black/white response.

I'm specifically saying it's good to investigate alternatives.  How much time and money you spend on that is a function of how much time you have. You don't have to risk everything for a solution now when the problem isn't going to happen for 100 years.  Should you worry?  Sure.  Should you drop all other considerations? Nope.  How do you determine which end of that spectrum is more important? By how long you have to solve he problem and what other problems are on your plate.

Quote from: JimBobOzDid I give an assessment of the relative chances of when the sacking would happen? Nope. It could have been 99% chance in one month and 1% in twenty years, or 1% in one month and 99% in twenty years - but immediately the focus is on "well that's ages away, so we don't have to do anything."

You didn't give percentages because they rebut your own argument. The latter is likely the scenario, and it's 100 years not 20.  So the reason to scream "the sky is falling!" now gets a bit blunted when the actual information gets used - instead of your cute little analogy which means nothing.

Quote from: JimBobOzLooking for an excuse to delay or avoid action, without asking for an assessment of the facts - what are the chances of the job ending at this or that time?

See, mature people know that it's not looking for an excuse - it's balanacing priorities and risks.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe reason to worry about fossil fuels running out, even if it's twenty years from now, is simply that it takes a long time to convert all the systems over.

What if it's 100 years JB? Do we worry about getting everyone converted or do we let theat happen naturally? I don't see to many people who have to be converted fromtheir horse and buggy - except maybe a few stray Amish, and they like what they've got.

Your 20 year figure is a great example - if you're talking about a job.  If I needed to have a different skill set to avoid losing my job in 20 years, would I panic?  Nope, I'd just figure out the best way to get the new skills without turning everyone around me into quivering masses of fearful jello that "Dad's losing his job in 20 years!!!!!"

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd again Skach focuses on minor quibbling points, pretending there's debate where there is none. I suggest a beginning of reading at , but as I said - even if burning coal gave us vitamin C, still, it's gonna run out.

I'm not focusing on a minor point.  I'm just throwing that out to address your little jibes at people who don't agree with you. My main point is as I stated above. If we accept your premise - that assuming burning oil didn't hurt the environment we should still be worried about oil supplies - you're acting panicked over something that is a long way off and can take a more measured response.

Quote from: JimBobOz"No, no, there's no problem... we don't have to do anything... no worries..."

Again - you're arguing against something I didn't say. Try reading.

Quote from: JimBobOzThere's not doom. The world won't end. But we have to ask ourselves if we want to do something like Sweden and Denmark - pledged to end fossil fuel consumption by 2020 and 2030 respectively

Well, I don't know about when Sweden made it's pledge, but poor Denmark is going to be a few years long of your 20 year window of doom, no? Which is exactly my point. They are taking their time about it.

Now, try turning a huge ship in the same time as your neighbor, god love em, turn his row boat.  It's a different deal, JB, and you know it. So please try to keep your comparisons relevant to the discussion.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's interesting that the strongest voices saying that the world isn't warming, and the oil will never run short, are coming from the country producing the most greenhouse gases, consuming the most oil, and... by a strange coincidence, have invaded Iraq and threaten its neighbours. If oil's going to last forever, you have to wonder why the USA is so keen to grab a reliable source of it, the second-largest proven recoverable oil reserves in the world. "There's heaps to go around! Don't worry! Plenty! Nobody worry! But hey, this pile is mine, motherfucker."

Ahhh..see..this is what gets you in trouble JB.  You reveal what's really going on - hatred/envy of the US.  So lets create a level playing field by fucking them over with cries of "oil shortage" and 'global warming caused by humans" It's all about finding a way to knock down the successful kid so you can feel like a special little snowflake over there is Australia with your cooking and growing your own food - aren't you a cute little throwback to the 19th Century...

Buy=Grab; riiiiight...

We'll be facing a shortage of oil only in 100 years?

BP doesn't think so. Shell Oil doesn't think so. Iran doesn't think so. The GAO doesn't think so. The US Army Corps of Engineers doesn't think so. They all reckon the oil supply's going to start biting in about twenty years, and they've already begun planning on that basis. Where'd you get 100 years from?

What's that? You made it up, without having done any research whatsoever? Rightyo. That's how the discussion will go? I present facts, you make things up? Nothing more to say to you, then.

*bye-bye*

Quote from: Dominus NoxThe thing is that local weathermen aren't in the business of spreading the word about global warming, they're in the biz of giving people their best estimates as to what local weather will be like in the imeadiate future.

I think this is the key point, a weatherman who doesn't believe in global warming plainly lacks the science to be a creditable authority on climate issues, but then their job doesn't require them to be such.

They're a form of specialised tv presenter, they tell us the weather in the immediate future, whether they are up to speed with current scientific theory or not is really neither here nor there.

I mean, they could believe the Earth was flat for all the difference it would make to their job.  That's the point, we're talking tv weathermen, not climatology professors, all they need to be able to do is remember a few lines, point at a blue screen and dress fairly conservatively.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe'll be facing a shortage of oil only in 100 years?

BP doesn't think so. Shell Oil doesn't think so. Iran doesn't think so. The GAO doesn't think so. The US Army Corps of Engineers doesn't think so. They all reckon the oil supply's going to start biting in about twenty years, and they've already begun planning on that basis. Where'd you get 100 years from?

What's that? You made it up, without having done any research whatsoever? Rightyo. That's how the discussion will go? I present facts, you make things up? Nothing more to say to you, then.

*bye-bye*

I'm confused, JimBob.  With just a quick Google search and a little bit of simple math I was able to determine we had more than 20 years left. I'll take you through it step by step, see if you can stay with me here.

• Go to this PDF.
  
• Go to page 2 (which is apparently page 155 of the report, but don't let the confuse you).
• Go to the bottom right hand corner, at the intersection of the column representing the projections for year 2030 and the and the row for total world.
• Read that figure (psst - it's a projection of 123 million barrels of oil per day of world-wide production).
• Now, subract 2007, the year we're in now, from 2030, the year of the projection.
• Are both numbers greater than 0?

See how that works? I mean, here's at least one source that's projecting worldwide oil production of 123 million barrels per day in 2030. That certainly blows a hole right through being out of oil in 20 years, yeah?

Now do the same with the Consumption. I'll shorten it by noting that the same report projects consumption of oil in 2030 at 118 million barrels per day. It's true that part of these figures incorporates higher prices, etc. from the demand outstripping the supply, but markets are amusingly self-correcting, contrary to other popular theories.

Now, will it be enough to keep up with increased demand? How long will it last? How much will it cost? All interesting questions to explore.  But it's certainly not crazy to say we'll have oil for more than 20 years if we're outputting 123 million barrels per day in 2030, yeah?

And I went and perused this GAO report, and this quote is right at the beginning:

Quote from: GAOMost studies estimate that oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040. This range of estimates is wide because the timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will help determine
how quickly the oil remaining in the ground is used, including the amount of oil still in the ground; how much of that oil can ultimately be produced given technological, cost, and environmental challenges as well as potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in some countries where oil is located; and future global demand for oil. Demand for oil will, in turn, be influenced by global economic growth and may be affected by government policies on the environment and climate change and consumer choices about conservation.

Hmmm...I'd agree with that.  I'd also agree with their conclusion that it's time to start looking at other sources (something which I've said to you on this forum in other threads).

Hmmm..Peak Oil was supposed to be in 1995. Now it's sometime between 2007 and 2040. Perhaps 100 years is not so crazy. It might be, but look at all those complicating factors.  It, apparently, isn't as black & white as you think.

So, yeah, go fuck yourself, Mr. High and Mighty.

Just for reference, this report appears to be from June 2006.  It's from the US DOE and appears to be based on International Energy Annual 2003 from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the DOE.

Oh, you mean it's going to "start biting" in 20 years.  And here all this time I thought you were saying we'll be out of oil in 20 years. Yeah, see, again. Mature people balance "start biting" into the equation of priorities and resource and goals and then proceed accordingly.

One interesting thing about oil consumption that hit me when all this flap began, especially when it comes to drilling for new sources, like in ANWR.

Envorinmentalists won't let us explore/exploit oil resources in the US, or at least always fight it tooth and nail, backed up by the Democrats.

We're still using oil like crazy, lots and lots of it imported.

So - when the oil runs out over THERE, we'll still have lots OVER HERE.

Happy days are here again! Yeah Sierra Club! Yay Democrats! :haw:

We now return to our regularly scheduled name-calling...