your thoughts on this so called global warming propaganda

[hard]

No enwiabe i have o agree with brenden

Oil supply WILL run out in our lifetimes, and when it happens, we will be fucked. And people like you who keep saying "THERE'S SO MUCH MORE GUYZZZ WE JUST NEED TO DRILL DEEPER!!1" Don't realise that there's something called an opportunity cost.

Nobody wants to drill that deep because it's too difficult and expensive.

That just sounds like a production cost to me. See opportunity cost.

It's opportunity as well. The opportunity to drill deeper costs A LOT more, but once they get the equipment in place it probably would only cost a little bit more than normal to get the oil itself. Maintenance would be a lot more, and that's about it. Initial cost though would kill any attempts at a successful operation.

A good lesson that I've learned from an economics professor is to ask: so what?

So what enwiabe? As brenden said,. If the production costs increase, so will the price we see in petrol station and if the economy cannot keep up with the trends, then our lack of dependence on oil will justify for its scarcity which will lead to other recources. But for as long as we have it, and that's saying a while, you cannot say that production and mining methods won't develop. Just as you ad a new harddrive yo your computer, so do petrochemical engineers work with new technology every year.
In the post World War II era U.S. oil prices at the wellhead averaged $24.98 per barrel adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars^1. Now a barrel costs 140+. If they told people back then that a barrel would increase by more than 100%, than they'd be saying what you just said. But the matter of fact is the economy kept up, prices have increased as a result and profit is conversely made. That's something you might have not learned.
btw here's the link for citation 1: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

[Mao]

please enlighten me why we should continue using oil then?

[from media,] it is projected that we'll have enough oil to last us another 50~60 years. where do you think that'll leave us at the end of that period?

and your logic suggest that we should exploit whatever resources we have available to us. why then, should we not finish off the amazon? trees are excellent for burning and making paper?

and again, what are the risks in pursuing deeper drilling? what are you prepared to give up for further exploitation of this finite resource? how the climate change is not currently within our understanding, why be so hasty?
think back to DDT.

[costargh]

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/

Part 3 refers to a Carbon trading scheme
Part 1 and 2 talk about rising prices, supply of oil, and fuelwatch

[hard]

please enlighten me why we should continue using oil then?

[from media,] it is projected that we'll have enough oil to last us another 50~60 years. where do you think that'll leave us at the end of that period?

and your logic suggest that we should exploit whatever resources we have available to us. why then, should we not finish off the amazon? trees are excellent for burning and making paper?

and again, what are the risks in pursuing deeper drilling? what are you prepared to give up for further exploitation of this finite resource? how the climate change is not currently within our understanding, why be so hasty?
think back to DDT.

well mao there's a reason why we should still keep using oil. If you don't know it already, but a large percentage of the nations and most other nations production of goods and reliance on oil for movement is quite substantial. Oil being produced beneath our feet is a continuous process, just like condensation and the water cycle, but using this oil forever cannot be justified because as you are right, the fossils will become less and less and hence oil will be harder to extract. But using this oil now and for another 50-100 years allows time for growth, development and adaption to meet future needs rather than suddenly stop using oil as you suggest. Stopping the usage of oil suddenly is a disastrous and idiotic thing to do that is very unrealistic.

This leaves me to my second point. Using the amazon as an example is not justified at all because the clear differences are defined within themselves that do not require me to show why this is so. Cutting trees Mao is actually bad for the environment and does need action to be taken, which has been scientifically proven as can be seen here as one example, http://www.treehelp.com/features/features-benefits.asp.

Thirdly, this is way off topic and regarding cutting trees and saying that oil won't last isn't enough or even a start to suggest any evidence backing up the global warming claims of many greenies and people like you. How can you say that our actions are the result of the ice caps melting. Why is now that we start taking pictures of these ice caps melting when the matter of fact is they were occurring for a number of years before anyone gave two S**T. Taxing the public to fund such schemes as the carbon offset emission devised by unscientific and unproven theories made by the Rudd government are just stupid. I don't want to pay for something i'm not sure off. Even with mathematics; if your in a mathematics world championship and you are shown a complex problem. With only two seconds to have to see the equation, you are to come up with an equation to solve the problem. This equation is most likely going to be random by theories may be submitted regarding your choice. If TAB put a bet on if or if not you would get the problem right, i wouldn't bet my money on something that has no ground because it is a guess based on fear and power.

[Mao]

wow, massive strawman.

well mao there's a reason why we should still keep using oil. If you don't know it already, but a large percentage of the nations and most other nations production of goods and reliance on oil for movement is quite substantial. Oil being produced beneath our feet is a continuous process, just like condensation and the water cycle, but using this oil forever cannot be justified because as you are right, the fossils will become less and less and hence oil will be harder to extract. But using this oil now and for another 50-100 years allows time for growth, development and adaption to meet future needs rather than suddenly stop using oil as you suggest. Stopping the usage of oil suddenly is a disastrous and idiotic thing to do that is very unrealistic.

I never said there should be an abrupt stop, however, I do think that further exploitation should not commence [unless there are good reasons that suggest otherwise]

This leaves me to my second point. Using the amazon as an example is not justified at all because the clear differences are defined within themselves that do not require me to show why this is so. Cutting trees Mao is actually bad for the environment and does need action to be taken, which has been scientifically proven as can be seen here as one example, http://www.treehelp.com/features/features-benefits.asp.

but apparently there is no clear causation of CO2 -> global warming. why should we worry so much? [and yes, it's only an analogy, not an example.]

Thirdly, this is way off topic and regarding cutting trees and saying that oil won't last isn't enough or even a start to suggest any evidence backing up the global warming claims of many greenies and people like you. How can you say that our actions are the result of the ice caps melting. Why is now that we start taking pictures of these ice caps melting when the matter of fact is they were occurring for a number of years before anyone gave two S**T. Taxing the public to fund such schemes as the carbon offset emission devised by unscientific and unproven theories made by the Rudd government are just stupid. I don't want to pay for something i'm not sure off. Even with mathematics; if your in a mathematics world championship and you are shown a complex problem. With only two seconds to have to see the equation, you are to come up with an equation to solve the problem. This equation is most likely going to be random by theories may be submitted regarding your choice. If TAB put a bet on if or if not you would get the problem right, i wouldn't bet my money on something that has no ground because it is a guess based on fear and power.

massive straw man right here.

1. I am not a greenie, in fact I believe their cause is too extreme and not beneficial to developing a solution to this problem.

2. why is it that pictures of polar ice pole melting shown in media? because it has happened, and because it's going to keep happening, and it's going to get worse. it has not been realised and publicised early enough.
consider this, why ban DTT when it has already caused considerable damage? would it have been better to keep it quiet and more damage done?

3. take your analogy with mathematics. the current global exploitation of fossil fuels is like a loud band playing in the background whilst the mathematician tries to think. whilst the question is being worked on, it is better to have as little disturbance as possible.

consider this being a gamble. we are not sure of the cause of global warming

if we do not change
- and global warming is caused by man ==> we're in deep crisis
- global warming is not caused by man and is a natural cycle ==> nothing lost

if we do change
- and global warming is caused by man ==> we've avoided/recovered/solved a deep crisis (assuming that we do find a solution)
- global warming is not caused by man ==> we have a more sustainable way of living (even though fossil fuels can be considered as continuous)

which one has less risk?

I do not advocate for what Rudd is doing, but at least the idea of global warming is being taken to a degree of seriousness, as it is observable.

I am only against your position because it does more harm than good for searching for an answer. stopping research into finding a cause/solution is a loss to entire mankind, and if that's your position, our ideals are very very different.

[Collin Li]

Mao, how can you ignore the costs of "making a change" when we didn't need to?

[hard]

wow, massive strawman.

well mao there's a reason why we should still keep using oil. If you don't know it already, but a large percentage of the nations and most other nations production of goods and reliance on oil for movement is quite substantial. Oil being produced beneath our feet is a continuous process, just like condensation and the water cycle, but using this oil forever cannot be justified because as you are right, the fossils will become less and less and hence oil will be harder to extract. But using this oil now and for another 50-100 years allows time for growth, development and adaption to meet future needs rather than suddenly stop using oil as you suggest. Stopping the usage of oil suddenly is a disastrous and idiotic thing to do that is very unrealistic.

I never said there should be an abrupt stop, however, I do think that further exploitation should not commence [unless there are good reasons that suggest otherwise]

This leaves me to my second point. Using the amazon as an example is not justified at all because the clear differences are defined within themselves that do not require me to show why this is so. Cutting trees Mao is actually bad for the environment and does need action to be taken, which has been scientifically proven as can be seen here as one example, http://www.treehelp.com/features/features-benefits.asp.

but apparently there is no clear causation of CO2 -> global warming. why should we worry so much? [and yes, it's only an analogy, not an example.]

Thirdly, this is way off topic and regarding cutting trees and saying that oil won't last isn't enough or even a start to suggest any evidence backing up the global warming claims of many greenies and people like you. How can you say that our actions are the result of the ice caps melting. Why is now that we start taking pictures of these ice caps melting when the matter of fact is they were occurring for a number of years before anyone gave two S**T. Taxing the public to fund such schemes as the carbon offset emission devised by unscientific and unproven theories made by the Rudd government are just stupid. I don't want to pay for something i'm not sure off. Even with mathematics; if your in a mathematics world championship and you are shown a complex problem. With only two seconds to have to see the equation, you are to come up with an equation to solve the problem. This equation is most likely going to be random by theories may be submitted regarding your choice. If TAB put a bet on if or if not you would get the problem right, i wouldn't bet my money on something that has no ground because it is a guess based on fear and power.

massive straw man right here.

1. I am not a greenie, in fact I believe their cause is too extreme and not beneficial to developing a solution to this problem.

2. why is it that pictures of polar ice pole melting shown in media? because it has happened, and because it's going to keep happening, and it's going to get worse. it has not been realised and publicised early enough.
consider this, why ban DTT when it has already caused considerable damage? would it have been better to keep it quiet and more damage done?

3. take your analogy with mathematics. the current global exploitation of fossil fuels is like a loud band playing in the background whilst the mathematician tries to think. whilst the question is being worked on, it is better to have as little disturbance as possible.

consider this being a gamble. we are not sure of the cause of global warming

if we do not change
- and global warming is caused by man ==> we're in deep crisis
- global warming is not caused by man and is a natural cycle ==> nothing lost

if we do change
- and global warming is caused by man ==> we've avoided/recovered/solved a deep crisis (assuming that we do find a solution)
- global warming is not caused by man ==> we have a more sustainable way of living (even though fossil fuels can be considered as continuous)

which one has less risk?

I do not advocate for what Rudd is doing, but at least the idea of global warming is being taken to a degree of seriousness, as it is observable.

I am only against your position because it does more harm than good for searching for an answer. stopping research into finding a cause/solution is a loss to entire mankind, and if that's your position, our ideals are very very different.

Well firstly, as you state in your second point, the ice caps may be melting. I am not disregarding the fact the global warming is occurring, no one is disputing this fact. But the main question here is, should we gamble with our lifestyle and money for something with no scientifical grounds? Now Mao you are a very scientific person as i have seen and judged throughout my time here on FSN. Why would you then encourage action that is irrational and has no evidence to back it's claims up.

As stated in wikipedia, the carbon offset emission schemes is defined as " a financial instrument representing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Although there are six primary categories of greenhouse gases,[1] carbon offsets are measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric ton of carbon dioxide, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases."

A financial instrument that affects us. as stated by , George Monbiot, an English environmentalist and writer, says that carbon offsets are an excuse for business as usual with regards to pollution. Proponents hold that the indulgence analogy is flawed because they claim carbon offsets actually reduce carbon emissions, changing the business as usual, and therefore address the root cause of climate change. Source wikipedia.

Also Mao I'm not saying we should stop research and finding a cause/solution. What i am saying is that we should not put up with the clown antics of the political figures and comments like yours that suggest, blaming carbon offsets as the purpose of green house gases does no harm at all.

And Actually, it depends on the mathematician on whether he/she can work with noice or not. If they are disturbing, then how do you stop it? Bribe them? Pay them money? take money of the audience to pay for their silence?

[Mao]

Mao, how can you ignore the costs of "making a change" when we didn't need to?

that cost, assuming it comes from government support, will hinder a few sectors of funding, and may raise tax by a degree. that is not ignored

but we only have one planet, and many different ways to sustain our economy/living. we ought not to die on one tree [being the economy], but we only have one Earth.

[Collin Li]

But the Earth is also part of the equation if we miscorrect the problem. People will be misallocating the resources of Earth. There is no need to make an emotional appeal about a singular Earth, and it does not complete your argument. You need quantitative analysis to evaluate the risk.

[Mao]

okay, it has been established on irc that:

I am irrational and I place an infinite value on Earth. I think that should give a bit of insight on why I say what I say.

[hard]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom

good read

[TrueLight]

http://business.theage.com.au/business/climate-science-is-never-settled-20080721-3ivh.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

pretty interesting article, another perspective on climate i agree with most of the things he says i reckon.

[Mao]

With China and India churning out new thermal power stations at assembly-line speed, our influence on the global climate is negligible. Surrounded as we are by great oceans, even the alarmist predictions will have relatively minor consequences for us for some time.

We can afford to wait. There is no point in decimating our economy in the pursuit of carbon neutrality if carbon is not the main culprit or if the climate is now on a new trend.

Instead, now is the time to moderate the pseudo-religious and uncritical belief that global warming is still as we once thought it might have been.

haha, sure Professor Geoffrey Kearsley

drinking isnt too bad. we can deal with tomorrow's massive hang over, in fact, i blame it on the cold I got yesterday, which also impacts it.
and I can afford to keep doing it, every time my body managed to bounce back up
that is, until tonight when I got really drunk and crashed the car and killed myself.
good riddance

[hard]

There's clear evidence Mao, everywhere, even scientists stating that we should not act, the way we have, on global warming as it is clearly a waste of money and is a path for financial disaster.

[TrueLight]

lol mao na like i think hes saying like we can't be certain what path the climate will take or something... i dunno like if we don't act tomorrow the world is very unlikely to get highly damaged and everything dies...you know... ah i dunno enough to say much but yeah

our climate teacher said that if we act and it turns out that climate doesnt change the way we predicted, then its actually a good thing in a lot of respect because by investing in trying to stop CO2 emmisions you bring other benefits... don't remember what the benefits are right now and i can't be bothered finding out but yeah... i dunno this climate stuff is pretty complicated, the models he said aren't always right like they don't define the parameters well enough or don't put things... argh! .....ok ill stop my rumbling now...lol