Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[kchriste]

People want it, people need it, the world will find a way to get it. Basic supply and demand, just gonna be a whole lot of bumps on the way.

Kinda like the food supply in Africa eh? Maybe they are just not hungry enough or want it enough.

 

[Sceadwian]

The means or methods aren't available or the people that have them aren't willing to do so for whatever reason, likely a lack of profit, or somebody elses problem syndrome. Such is not the case with energy.

 

[Sceadwian]

Mike, it's not clever at all from a scientific viewpoint you have to have as FEW facts as possible, or you're building your house on sand, such as the whole climategate hubhub this thread was started on, Global warming is a fact in many circles, it is in fact a series of assumptions based on projections from extrapolated data that hasn't been through the ringer for it's ability to determine ANYTHING yet, won't for a few hundred or thousand years either. Calling it a fact doesn't make it one, it has to be proven. The 'fact' of your death does not actually exist it's a supposition until it occurs then it's an observation, the odds of it occurring are incredibly high, but not guaranteed.

 

[kchriste]

Such is not the case with energy.

That IS the case since the supply of oil is limited. You can demand all you want, but once the oil is gone it is gone. It is a finite resource, we have increasing demand every year, so it is inevitable that we will run out if we continue to use it so foolishly. You can kiss the car culture goodbye in 60 years or less. Electric trains and public transit are the way of the future.
Using oil is like living off your inheritance. Once it is gone, we'll discover the true cost of running our society. Sure there are other technologies such as nuclear energy, but none as portable, convenient, and as energy dense as the fossil fuels available today.

 

[ke5frf]

Clever, but you are trifling in addition to skewing the context of my original statement. I never mentioned anything about the permanency of death, rather I stated that it is a fact that someday I will die, as in to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of all vital functions; become dead. This is undisputed and without question as my heart will eventually stop, my blood will cease to flow, brain activity will end and rigor will set in. This is a fact.

Many science experiments use facts to confirm an observation such as if I hold a steel ball and let it go, it wall drop to the ground and this is a fact. Now why the ball drops is another question and you can argue with Newton and Einstein on that one.

While this is a certainty as of December 28th, 2009...There is no scientific reason that the aging process, disease of all sorts, and thus death can't be overcome by medical advancement. Let me be clear that I hope mankind never allows such technology. I can't think of anything worse..global warming, global freezing, nuclear obliteration. At least, until we are able to freely move about the galaxy and establish colonies to expand our "real estate", I hope it never happens. What I'm getting at is that it is "hypothetically" within reason that genetic engineering and future chemical discoveries may allow indefinite lifespans. All this "stem cell" business may reach a point of prolong cell rejuvenation to infinitum. The technology isn't inconceivable and MOST biologists in medical research would say that the technology will eventually be discovered. You may even say that this is the consensus. I have no idea, just a educated guess. Does that make it fact? No. Is your death 100% certain, a fact? No, not until it actually happens is it a fact. In other words, if you are breathing at this very moment, your death is not a fact but rather a presumption.

I'm digging into the philosophical realm here...but you see my point. Scaedwian is correct. And more to the point, there isn't a scientific theory or law...yes even laws, that aren't subject to revision in light of new discoveries. Newton's laws had to be rewritten once the first rocket made it into orbit. Just one example.

 

[Sceadwian]

kchristie, those estimates are based on existing oil production and pumping methods, there is huge money being spent on getting more oil that was previously possible out of existing wells. Sure in theory it should run out at some point but 60 years is a LONG time to develope new energy storage/generation techniques which will mitigate it's dwindling supply, and geological speaking everything isn't know about other possible sources of oil not previously known.

Just saying oh no oh no in 60 years the world is going to cease to exist because oil will be gone is far from a certain thing. Things are going to change, no doubt, how and to what extent remains to be seen, but it's not like science industry or the world in general is twiddling their thumbs on the whole issue. To discuss it any more than that is pretty pointless, and you've got 60 years to find out if you're right or wrong.

Compare energy technologies from 60 years ago to today and tell me in the next 60 years there aren't going to be incredible advances, and say it's a certain thing. Not a chance you can say that with certainty. Back in 77 it was predicted that based on technology at the time that the worlds practical oil reserves would be completely gone in 10 years. We've come a long way since then and we have a long way to go. Or there could be a global economic and social disaster or global environmental diaster that will make people go "Oh well I never thought THAT would happen"

Pretty much every theory posited in this thread will be proven wrong by that time and a WHOLE different set of theories will take their place, with any luck they'll be slightly less political, but I'm not holding my breath. So really, what are we even talking about here?

 

[ke5frf]

The "peak oil" presumption is a carryover from the 1970s. Known oil reserves are sufficient to carry us to the second half of this century. Not to mention deposits awaiting discovery and advancements in drilling technology. There are convincing arguments to be made that crude oil is in whole or part derived from geological resources rather than fossil matter. (abiotic origin theory). In fact, the concept of "fossil fuel" is entirely a western concept. Scientists in the old Soviet Union have been arguing since the 1950s that oil is a geological product in abundance and point out how "tapped out" reserves have occasionally been found entirely replenished after re-drilling in later years.

I don't buy into the theory of abiotoc origins but it is worth mentioning. It is a good read and you have to realize that one aspect of the cold war was that western and eastern science went off in different directions and discoveries were not always shared. There is still an abundance of Soviet scientific literature that has never been translated or introduced to Western academia. By default, when communism "fell", Soviet academia and science integrated into western culture, adopting much (but not all) of its dogma. Obviously this has to be the case because Westerners would be reluctant to accept dogma that "evolved" in a different direction. There are plenty of old Soviet scientists though, in retirement, who might know a few things that Westerners will never accept.

Do I believe it? Nah. But I do believe this is an example where alternate theories should be explored. Lots of reasons to keep us in the energy dependent pockets of government and industry. If oil were an unlimited resource they wouldn't be able to control the masses so easily.

 

[kchriste]

So really, what are we even talking about here?

I say that the oil reserves are finite. Do you differ on this?
Of coarse there will be new oil discoveries, but more likely it will be things like the Alberta Oil sands which are already known but are much more expensive and difficult to extract than classic oil. They become "available" as the price per barrel goes up. Demand will outpace supply because capitalism demands an expanding economy which requires a perpetual increase in resource use. ie: China and India want in on the loot and are building an automobile industry of their own.
In the end, we will run out of oil because we can't wait for the millions of years that it takes for plankton to be converted to crude.

Compare energy technologies from 60 years ago to today and tell me in the next 60 years there aren't going to be incredible advances, and say it's a certain thing.

Not much different. They had electric street cars and trains prior to 1940. The internal combustion engine was basically the same. Except, for safety, electronics and emission controls, the basic gasoline engine uses the same principles.

 

[Sceadwian]

I've heard that abiotic theory for oil, I think the only reason I like the idea is cause if it panned out half the eco nuts would probably jump off a cliff. Just crack science though, at least I haven't heard of any research done that says otherwise. Then again I don't study this stuff much, too many opinions, and people with facts, virtually no two of which agree and all of which have an agenda that has little to nothing to do with the actual lessening of mans impact on our environment.

 

[Thunderchild]

Every year oil drilling technology gets better and better. In 60 years we'll have extended that 'limit' out, and other technologies will be available to sumplement or replace oil. People want it, people need it, the world will find a way to get it. Basic supply and demand, just gonna be a whole lot of bumps on the way.

One thing I like to remind people whenever conversations like this come up is that EVERY single last drop of oil that we're taking out of the ground, CAME from natural sources. We're doing NOTHING but releasing energy that was stored. Yeah that'll upset things a bit to some degree, adding energy to a system will, however and again, this is insignificant in relation to the energies already lose in the world.

don't you understand ? likie you say all that energy was put there by nature but do you know how ? as I said in the other thread the earth was once very warm because we had a lot of CO2 in the air, the trees absorbed that died got buried and fossilized so storing away all that carbon and making the planet more livable for us when we finally came along. Now us clever dicks come along and let all that carbon out again in the form of CO2, we will take the planet back to what it was. very warm not so much land and no ice caps. will this be a disaster ? well depends on how you look at it. Nature don't give a toss. We are just another creature on this planet, if we die out due to a change in the climate who really cares ?

 

[bryan1]

/rant
First thing I hate to add religion to this debate,

But wasn't just over 2009 years ago or abit longer that Noah made an ark and put a pair of every animal in so called ark as the earth was immersed in water for 40 days. Really where does this claim come in history in terms of scientific information. Is it a FACT that religion can dumb the mass's and believe that not long before after 2009 the world was flooded and Noah performed this act.

Really think about this all you believers as isn't the bible true??????????

/end another rant to a very good laugh

 

[Thunderchild]

I'm not sure what noah and the bible has to do with this, I do beleive that there is thought to be some truth to it as fossilized fish have been found on elevated ground, obviously though the time it happend and the time it lasted is nothing like that escribed in the bible.

After all as far as I'm concerned god was/is and ET but lets no go there, this debate is swerving all over the place as it it

 

[Mikebits]

But wasn't just over 2009 years ago or abit longer that Noah made an ark and put a pair of every animal in so called ark

I thought Noah was from B.C. time, much older than 2000 years ago.

 

[HarveyH42]

Let's get back to the Emails...

Now, its common to manipulate data, so it fits nicely on a graph, and illustrates some statement you are trying to make. The points found in the Email kind show that these scientists are more or less fabricating the data they need, to support their statement. They were using only the portion of data that was supportive, substituted data the seemed similar to what they need, to fill in the gaps, sometimes just creating the figures to fit. Each source should have been a separate graph, not pieces patched in, to fill undesirable areas. I thought that in science, you perform experiments to test a theory, sometimes they work out as expected, sometimes you get disappointed. You either form a new theory, or think up some new tests, you don't just fix the results. Seems these guys think they have a pretty good idea, but proving it will take a lot of time. Mostly, they are focused on selling the idea right now, not actually proving it.
They may be on the right track, but lack credibility for their methods. They should get back to the science, and leave the selling to Al Gore. He's seems to be pretty good at stepping in, and making a buck of of other people's work. Isn't he the one who 'created' the internet? Although, it had been around for sometime in the universities and government for quite a while...

 

[shortbus=]

Al Gore! Do some searching about him and HARA. Plus Gore and Maurice Strong. That and Ben Sanders and Lord Christopher Monckton.

The whole Global Warming thing is about making a few people richer than they are, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Thunderchild]

Al Gore! Do some searching about him and HARA. Plus Gore and Maurice Strong. That and Ben Sanders and Lord Christopher Monckton.

The whole Global Warming thing is about making a few people richer than they are, nothing more, nothing less.

if people allow themselves to be manipulated yes. it anoys me when i see these energy companies offering "green electricity" they try and sign you over to them on the promise that the electricity they are selling you is green and from renewable sources, rubbish, where is all this "green power" coming from ? we don't have the facilities yet to make 100 % renewable energy and these people will flog "green electricity" to any fool willing to sign up.

another thing thats stupid is this "buy your carbon credits" or something like that where people are dupped into beleiving that they can pay a few quid to get someone else in the 3rd world living greener than them so that they can feel their concience is clean. some people are so stupidly gullible

 

[Sceadwian]

Thunderchild. Yeah, do I understand. So what? If worst case global warming scenarios happen human civilization could possibly collapse, the chances of us being completely wiped out are I think are very very low. Massive ecological disasters on this planet are the norm not the exception. The idea that nature was in some kind of perfect state and we upset the balance is complete lunacy.

 

[Thunderchild]

well I hope your rich or posses some other power, as it is the planet cannot hold many more of us. yea as a civilization we may survive, but not all of us !

 

[Mickster]

well I hope your rich or posses some other power, as it is the planet cannot hold many more of us. yea as a civilization we may survive, but not all of us !

Survival of the fittest?

Evolution....

 

[Thunderchild]

not in our "civilized" world mate, when food is so hard to grow and expensive and there is not enough to go round who do you think will get first pick ? when we need to live in heavily climate controlled environments because of the heat will you be able to afford the cost of living in a heavily conditioned environment.

if you want to have to go out and kill your neghibours for what will be left of our resources one day go right ahead