Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

[Fish]

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.
Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.
The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.
The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.
Interesting? Click here to explore further (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/)

[TDK1044]

You can also add cyclic solar events (sunspots) to the equation. There is a direct correlation between solar events and climatic changes on this planet. Methene gas from the wetlands is also an issue.

Undoubtedly we must monitor closely our impact on our planet, but much of the global warming argument put forward by the left is total nonsense, and has to do with them wanting a change to our economic structure and way of life and has nothing to do with a realistic scientific assesment of our planet's climate.

I think that finally more and more people are starting to see the GW issue for what it is....about time.

[Fish]

You can also add cyclic solar events (sunspots) to the equation. There is a direct correlation between solar events and climatic changes on this planet. Methene gas from the wetlands is also an issue.

Undoubtedly we must monitor closely our impact on our planet, but much of the global warming argument put forward by the left is total nonsense, and has to do with them wanting a change to our economic structure and way of life and has nothing to do with a realistic scientific assesment of our planet's climate.

I think that finally more and more people are starting to see the GW issue for what it is....about time.

Your still in Stage One: Denial

See my other post:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136106

[TDK1044]

:rotfl:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Does anyone else think its hilarious that the UN have studied Cow Farts?

They do bugger all else, so it doesnt suprise me per se..

[Dowly]

Does anyone else think its hilarious that the UN have studied Cow Farts?

They do bugger all else, so it doesnt suprise me per se..

Well someone had to do it. :D

[d@rk51d3]

Soooooooo, who want's to pull my finger? :shifty:

[mrbeast]

You can also add cyclic solar events (sunspots) to the equation. There is a direct correlation between solar events and climatic changes on this planet. Methene gas from the wetlands is also an issue.

Undoubtedly we must monitor closely our impact on our planet, but much of the global warming argument put forward by the left is total nonsense, and has to do with them wanting a change to our economic structure and way of life and has nothing to do with a realistic scientific assesment of our planet's climate.

I think that finally more and more people are starting to see the GW issue for what it is....about time.

Solar activity is way overstated as a major cause of global warming.


Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html

While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/), "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The gradual increase in global temperatures is getting harder and harder to pin on the Sun and its energy output variability. The Sun has a variation in how much energy it outputs but this variability is only about one tenth of one percent. The pattern of atmospheric heating since the 1960s is showing an increase with the increase in human activity (industry, transportation, power generation) and neither are showing signs of slowing down…

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/

Climate change is a contentious issue among the public. One of the main arguments made by people who claim that climate change is not caused by humans states that recent global warming is a result of changes in solar activity. Indeed, a 2007 broadcast on Channel4 titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" tried to make exactly that case.
This case is based on the idea that changes in solar activity influence cloud formation, which influences the climate. The original concept dates back at least as far as a 1975 paper published by the American Meteorological Society, but it's recently been revived as an alternative explanation to the recent rise in global temperatures.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/04/03/investigating-the-great-global-warming-swindle

Solar radiation is not the cause of recent global warming, two scientists say in a report published by Britain's Royal Society, the country's science organization.
The study was undertaken partly to rebut a TV documentary that argued natural solar radiation, not human activity, is the cause of global warming, the BBC reported.

http://www.nowpublic.com/sun_does_not_cause_global_warming_uk_study

[bradclark1]

You can also add cyclic solar events (sunspots) to the equation. There is a direct correlation between solar events and climatic changes on this planet.
Methinks you should maybe research that thought a little bit.

[TDK1044]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_nonsense.pdf

[bradclark1]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_nonsense.pdf

“Carbon offsets” and other mechanisms to relieve the
“carbon footprint” of the industrialized sector are simply new
ways to keep the Third World poor and in the dark, with no access
to advanced technology.
Thats a new twist. It's a plot against the third world.:roll:

Here's a Stanford study.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[TDK1044]

Hey, if you buy the GW nonsense that's fine with me. I will continue to treat it with the contempt it deserves. It's politically motivated nonsense.

[Fish]

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

The sun aye. (http://<a href=)

[SUBMAN1]

Your still in Stage One: Denial

See my other post:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136106:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: :D :lol:

Denial - now that is funny!

Let me ask this question - what made this massive spike in global warming in the 1990's? Industry did quadruple overnight, so its complete BS with numbers manipulation written all over it. At least some people still have a brain left. I see some on this forum are lacking one however.

-S

[Tchocky]

If it's solar cycles, then why have we never seen this before?

Cyclical implies repetition. Current warming is considerably faster than anything we've seen before.

It ain't the sun.

The sun has an effect, of course. Just not that kind of effect.

Oh guys, it's not farts, cows belch methane.

[SUBMAN1]

If it's solar cycles, then why have we never seen this before?

Cyclical implies repetition. Current warming is considerably faster than anything we've seen before.

It ain't the sun.

The sun has an effect, of course. Just not that kind of effect.See my above post - numbers manipulation.

-S

[Tchocky]

How so?

EDIT - And to what numbers are you referring?

[SUBMAN1]

How so?

EDIT - And to what numbers are you referring?If you look at Al Gore's graphs showing this massive spike in the 1990's in temps and CO2 emmissions is what I'm referring to. These people are making you believe lies, and anyone with a brain knows that industry didn't expand 10x over! There aren't 10x the cars on the planet. Maybe we have 10x more cows farting? :D Come on! Give me a break! I'm tired of this nonsense.

-S

[Tchocky]

I was talking about the solar effect on global temperature. Try reading my post again.

Can you show some of these graphs, they don't sound specifically familiar to me? It would also bolster your claims of lies, and possibly to credence to your insulting description of those you disagree with.

[SUBMAN1]

I was talking about the solar effect on global temperature. Try reading my post again.

Can you show some of these graphs, they don't sound specifically familiar to me? It would also bolster your claims of lies, and possibly to credence to your insulting description of those you disagree with.Oh go jump off a cliff. We've all seen them. With a statement like that, you are not even worth talking to.

They are probably posted 100 times in this forum no less.

-S

[Tchocky]

With a statement like that, you are not even worth talking to.
Anything other than backing up your statement, eh?

Oh go jump off a cliff
That's nice.

[SUBMAN1]

With a statement like that, you are not even worth talking to. Anything other than backing up your statement, eh?Excuse me?

Oh go jump off a cliff That's nice.And perfectly fitting.

-S

[Tchocky]

Excuse me? I asked you to back up your claim, and you suddenly argued that I wasn't worth talking to.
It seems that I was worth talking to up until the point where I asked you to provide evidence for your claim.
Understand?

[Sea Demon]

If it's solar cycles, then why have we never seen this before?

Cyclical implies repetition. Current warming is considerably faster than anything we've seen before.

It ain't the sun.

The sun has an effect, of course. Just not that kind of effect.

Oh guys, it's not farts, cows belch methane.

Current Warming??? Some of these "scientists" are now saying that a reversal and ice age is within the realm of possibilities. There is no "current warming" going on. The warming (and old climate models) you refer to is not going on in 2008.....despite increased CO2 output from humans. And despite the increases from humans, it's still a drop in the bucket. And it's also very amazing that sunspot acitivity has been reduced this winter, and that has directly correlated to lower temperatures. I wouldn't expect the bought and paid for "scientists" to bring attention to it though.

Cow emissions destroying the planet?!?!? And you can't even see how funny and ridiculous the whole notion is.

[Tchocky]

It's hardly ridiculous, methane as a greenhouse gas is 20 times stronger than CO2.

[SUBMAN1]

Excuse me? I asked you to back up your claim, and you suddenly argued that I wasn't worth talking to.
It seems that I was worth talking to up until the point where I asked you to provide evidence for your claim.
Understand?I'm sorry. SOmething that has hundreds of threads and has been posted here more times than I can count - I am not going to waste my time and go over the same exact things we have hashed here in plenty of occasions - including between me and you. You and your damn stall tactics. Its getting old real fast.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Subman you sound like a fanatic religious leader :D Never question Subman's dogma !A big WHATEVER here.

-S

[Sea Demon]

It's hardly ridiculous, methane as a greenhouse gas is 20 times stronger than CO2.
No, it's totally ridiculous the tiny amount cows emit compared to total naturally occuring greenhouse gases. And how it's looked at as a problem. This is going to go down in history like the acid rain scares that were supposed to destroy the ability for soil to grow crops. In 20 years people will be laughing about how people thought in 2008 cow burps were causing out of control global warming. The whole notion of this seems pretty far out there. But at least it might be good for the beef industry. :lol:

[Tchocky]

It's not as intuitively logical as other sorts of emissions, I suppose.
Then again, there are a hell of a lot of cattle producing a lot of methane, and all of this is at the margin of natural processes.

@ Subman - If you post ridiculous claims, nay, any claims, expect to be asked for evidence. How many times it's been discussed before makes little difference, and sounds like an excuse at this stage.

[TDK1044]

The Earth will continue its natural environmental cycles, just as it has for millions of years, the sun will continue to do the same, and the politically motivated nonsense about so called 'Global Warming' will also continue. :D

[SUBMAN1]

It's not as intuitively logical as other sorts of emissions, I suppose.
Then again, there are a hell of a lot of cattle producing a lot of methane, and all of this is at the margin of natural processes.

@ Subman - If you post ridiculous claims, nay, any claims, expect to be asked for evidence. How many times it's been discussed before makes little difference, and sounds like an excuse at this stage.See TDK's post. Says everything you need to know. You might learn something from it.

-S

[Tchocky]

Everything I need to know? That's a rather drastic limit. It may explain your postings, however.

[SUBMAN1]

Everything I need to know? That's a rather drastic limit. It may explain your postings, however.Amazing you can even read what is posted, outside of your own rhetoric of course.

-S

[bradclark1]

If it's solar cycles, then why have we never seen this before?

Cyclical implies repetition. Current warming is considerably faster than anything we've seen before.

It ain't the sun.

The sun has an effect, of course. Just not that kind of effect.

Oh guys, it's not farts, cows belch methane.

Current Warming??? Some of these "scientists" are now saying that a reversal and ice age is within the realm of possibilities. There is no "current warming" going on. The warming (and old climate models) you refer to is not going on in 2008.....despite increased CO2 output from humans. And despite the increases from humans, it's still a drop in the bucket. And it's also very amazing that sunspot acitivity has been reduced this winter, and that has directly correlated to lower temperatures. I wouldn't expect the bought and paid for "scientists" to bring attention to it though.

Cow emissions destroying the planet?!?!? And you can't even see how funny and ridiculous the whole notion is.
Funny! I remember showing you last go around reports that said 15% of the world had lower than normal temperatures. I don't think sun spots affects 15% only. I would also say that 3% isn't a drop in the bucket but is enough to change the natural balance. Lets be clear about something else. The only bought and paid for scientists are the ones you use as reference. It would be nice if there actually was a scientist that wasn't financed by Exxon/Mobil with some credible data.

[bradclark1]

@ Subman - If you post ridiculous claims, nay, any claims, expect to be asked for evidence. How many times it's been discussed before makes little difference, and sounds like an excuse at this stage.
I don't believe SUBMAN1 has ever posted anything beside spam links.

[Tchocky]

Everything I need to know? That's a rather drastic limit. It may explain your postings, however.Amazing you can even read what is posted, outside of your own rhetoric of course.
What?

I read and responded to TDK's first post in the thread, and I've read and responded to yours, you've even quoted me. What's your point?

[Takeda Shingen]

Let's all relax and step away from the personal attacks.

The Management

[Sea Demon]

Funny! I remember showing you last go around reports that said 15% of the world had lower than normal temperatures. I don't think sun spots affects 15% only. I would also say that 3% isn't a drop in the bucket but is enough to change the natural balance. Lets be clear about something else. The only bought and paid for scientists are the ones you use as reference. It would be nice if there actually was a scientist that wasn't financed by Exxon/Mobil with some credible data.
I don't think your data is credible. The "scientists" at IPCC and other groups are paid to show a result. Nothing more than that really. Their funding is directly related to it. It looked to me exactly like the data that you routinely show. The data the highlights CO2(man-made at 3% of 3% of the total greenhouse gases - Not 3% as you suggest), and pretty much ignores every other factor. And the data that looks at 1 century of a 1 degree difference in temperature as alarming. Just absolutely stupid. For someone who claims to be of a grandfatherly age, you sure don't seem to have the wisdom that goes with it, and the ability to understand when your being hoodwinked. It's also funny how you only seem to allow people with opinions of doom form your own opinion.

Here's some more of your global warming:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

"Anchorage digs out after record snow fall." All despite increasing CO2 and cow burps.

And BTW, I'm happy Exxon is funding scientists that are disputing this nonsense. Someone has to do it. If the environmentalists are trying to impede their ability to deliver needed energy to drive our country's economy by pushing junk science, Exxon's doing a great service. I applaud them for it. The bought and paid for "scientists" at IPCC should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially since their entire premises have been thrown out the window.

[Sea Demon]

The Earth will continue its natural environmental cycles, just as it has for millions of years, the sun will continue to do the same, and the politically motivated nonsense about so called 'Global Warming' will also continue. :D

Truer words have never been spoken. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

The Earth will continue its natural environmental cycles, just as it has for millions of years, the sun will continue to do the same, and the politically motivated nonsense about so called 'Global Warming' will also continue. :D
Truer words have never been spoken. :yep:That is true.

What I find alarming is that anything said against the collective norm if you are a scientist, no matter how true it may be, you lose your funding and your job. Then, just as alarming and no matter if massive amounts of evidence are on your side, to say anything against the collective (maybe we should call them the Borg?) when not a scientist and the mob attacks you to no end. Scary times. Definitely not a healthy democracy anymore.

-S

[Sea Demon]

What I find alarming is that anything said against the collective norm if you are a scientist, no matter how true it may be, you lose your funding and your job. Then, just as alarming and no matter if massive amounts of evidence are on your side, to say anything against the collective (maybe we should call them the Borg?) when not a scientist and the mob attacks you to no end. Scary times. Definitely not a healthy democracy anymore.

-S

Well, the alarmists have been doing this for a long time. In this particular fashion since the 60's really. And they have the loud peanut gallery that follows them into believing anything they say. The only cycle that's consistent is, there seems to always be a "scare" theory of some type thnat they push. And their people will believe it no matter how broken their theory is. This "man-made" global warming and the followers of it are becoming like scientologists. They're just as pushy about their beliefs as well.

[STEED]

About time you guys in America started eating more cows. ;)

Toss a cow on the barbie no wait make it two. :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

About time you guys in America started eating more cows. ;)

Toss a cow on the barbie no wait make it two. :lol:Hopefully not UK ones - they are all mad! :D

I need a new barbie, but I'm picky about gas vs. charcoal. If I have to cook with gas, I might as well cook it on the stove or a George Forman! I was going to buy one last year, but never got around to it.

How about this one? http://www.weber.com/bbq/pub/grill/2007/charcoal/Performer.aspx Got the best of both worlds. Charcoal for cooking, yet propane is used for lighting - eliminating any lighter fluid taste on your good steak, while maintaining the smokey charcoal flavor! Not to mention that it takes the screwing around with lighting charcoal out of the equation. High tech charcoal barbie at its finest!

http://www.weber.com/bbq/img/performer_hero.jpg



-S

PS. Besides, you get to burn coal and help slow global cooling!

[bradclark1]

I don't think your data is credible. The "scientists" at IPCC and other groups are paid to show a result. Nothing more than that really. Their funding is directly related to it.
Duh! I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it. Thats a real grown up approach. I shouldn't expect nothing less from you actually. You keep your belief that 15% encompasses the whole planet.

It looked to me exactly like the data that you routinely show. The data the highlights CO2(man-made at 3% of 3% of the total greenhouse gases - Not 3% as you suggest), and pretty much ignores every other factor.
313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. I think what your brain can't accept is the word "trace". Even though manmade Co2 is 3.2 percent of the total of Co2 it is an imbalance. If there is an unnatural imbalance it is going to have repurcussions.

And the data that looks at 1 century of a 1 degree difference in temperature as alarming. Just absolutely stupid. For someone who claims to be of a grandfatherly age, you sure don't seem to have the wisdom that goes with it, and the ability to understand when your being hoodwinked. It's also funny how you only seem to allow people with opinions of doom form your own opinion.
Whats the difference between 32% and 33%?



Here's some more of your global warming:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

"Anchorage digs out after record snow fall." All despite increasing CO2 and cow burps.
Let me try and teach you a little something. Snow is precipitation. What that means is that Alaska had a lot of precipitation at that time. That has squat to do with a global cooling temperature. It snows in Alaska every April.


And BTW, I'm happy Exxon is funding scientists that are disputing this nonsense. Someone has to do it. If the environmentalists are trying to impede their ability to deliver needed energy to drive our country's economy by pushing junk science, Exxon's doing a great service. I applaud them for it. The bought and paid for "scientists" at IPCC should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially since their entire premises have been thrown out the window.
Okay. Who has bought and paid for these GW scientists? Exxon/Mobil might stop paying these ant-GW scientists because the Getty's are trying to swing share holders into making Exxon do research on alternative fuels seeing as they aren't doing anything in research. No wonder they are paying scientists and gullible people like you suck it all up.

[Sea Demon]

Duh! I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it. Thats a real grown up approach. I shouldn't expect nothing less from you actually. You keep your belief that 15% encompasses the whole planet.

I think that has been your complete attitude from the get go. That's OK though. You keep believing those broken old theories. I don't buy any of it, because they leave things out of the model that don't produce the results they're paid to show. 15% indeed doesn't encompass the whole planet. That should tell you right there the lack of significance in what they try to show. It's a pittance.


313 ppm (parts per million) in 1960 to about 375 ppm in 2005. I think what your brain can't accept is the word "trace". Even though manmade Co2 is 3.2 percent of the total of Co2 it is an imbalance. If there is an unnatural imbalance it is going to have repurcussions.

Doesn't matter. It's not driving any warming like they said it would. The theories of sustained emissions vs. increased warming are bunk. The imbalance caused by that small fraction of a percent is irrelevant and hardly noticeable.

Whats the difference between 32% and 33%?

1% dummy. :doh::roll:


Let me try and teach you a little something. Snow is precipitation. What that means is that Alaska had a lot of precipitation at that time. That has squat to do with a global cooling temperature. It snows in Alaska every April.

You are incapable of teaching anything to anybody. Your information comes from Google articles. You don't even know how to make heads or tails out of any of it, or scrutinize anything within them yourself. It snows in Alaska and freezes over every year. And your false beliefs in man-made global warming will not change any of it. This year set records up there. I don't see how you're making any point here. Snow is precipitation. No kidding. What does it have to do with average global warming temperatures? Where does the increased and sustained droplet of human produced CO2 come into play? I don't think you know what point you're trying to make here.

Okay. Who has bought and paid for these GW scientists? Exxon/Mobil might stop paying these ant-GW scientists because the Getty's are trying to swing share holders into making Exxon do research on alternative fuels seeing as they aren't doing anything in research. No wonder they are paying scientists and gullible people like you suck it all up.

Seems to me they get alot of inter-governmental funding, the UN, and private individuals like Al Gore and George Soros seem to throw alot their way. You seem to have an axe to grind against those who make your life possible brad. Do you depend on oil? Do you drive a car? Does your family depend on food from a grocery store? Do you buy stuff from retailers like Wal-Mart? Please let us know. Gullibility is a funny thing brad. Once you've seen Ice Age scares of the 70's, Soil depletions of the 80's, acid rain scares of the 70's-80's, Ocean depletions of the 90's, Y2K scares, Peak Oil scares, Ozone hole scares etc. etc., and now this man-made globval warming scares where the theories look inconsistent and parsed for content, the boy cried wolf a little too much for me. None of the abov e came true in anyway BTW. For a guy your age, you should have learned somewhere along the line to question these looney sources. I guess some are just incapable of breaking from the chains of gullibility. Despite years of living, some never learn to think and analyze for themselves. Some will always wait for an opinion to be formulated for them.

Get ready to be more lonely in your gloom and doom outlook:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2238317.0.Doubt_is_cast_over_global_wa rming.php

Even more skepticism.

[Sea Demon]

when not a scientist and the mob attacks you to no end. Scary times. Definitely not a healthy democracy anymore.

-S

Funny thing is Subman, If I were to put together my Master's Project with as many holes as these people put into their climate "studies", it would have never passed review. In a Master's program, you could never cherry pick your data, and only use the stuff you want to acheive an outcome and be taken seriously. That's why I don't trust that these people are actually doing things scientifically. Plus this:

Hurricane forecasts were rather embarassing to the "man-made" warming people, so they just sweep their inaccuracies under the rug.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

[Fish]

[ Peak Oil scares,


On Accepting Peak Oil--And Finding Profit

2008-04-30
By Chris Nelder

I had pretty surreal experience in TV land on Monday.
I had the privilege of appearing on the Fox Business channel, to talk about why oil prices are so high and what the future holds for oil.
In typical TV interview format, I was set up in opposition to another energy analyst who is well known for his cornucopian views. Him on one side of the "panel," me on the other, and the moderator.
You probably know what happened next: I sat there trying to stare at a barely visible camera in a small studio in San Francisco with only an ear bud and no video, thanks to the 5-second delay from New York, while the moderator gave the vast majority of our two short segments to the cornucopian, who called me a "peak freak."
I had to grin at that one. (Personally, I prefer the less pejorative "peaker.")
As he carried on about how technology will save the day, achieving vast increases in oil extraction, and about the 12 trillion barrels of oil left to exploit worldwide, I could barely stifle myself.
Unfortunately, they afforded me no opportunity to respond to any of those points. They only seemed to want my opposing view—that oil would stay more or less permanently over $100 a barrel—to make the segment "fair and balanced."
I tried to explain the importance of flow rates, the concept of a plateau at the top of Hubbert's Peak, the limits of enhanced oil recovery, and the time it takes to bring new solutions to market, but my words seemed to fall on deaf ears.
As any student of peak oil investing knows, this stuff is complex. It's hard to talk about in TV sound bites. Especially when you have to explain the gulf between the 12 trillion barrels of original oil in place that my opponent was talking about, and the 1 trillion barrels of remaining recoverable oil that I was talking about.
Presumably, Fox Business thought it best to leave it to the viewer to figure that one out.
What can I tell ya. I did what I could with it. Another appearance is scheduled for tomorrow. Maybe I'll get a few more words in next time.
Evolution of a Peak Freak

I really can't blame the media for their reluctance to face up to peak oil. It's an unpleasant concept and it immediately strikes fear into one's heart.
I have often reflected on how coming to grips with peak oil is much like the process of grieving, as identified by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. In peaker terms, I'd describe it like this:

Denial: "There's plenty of oil out there, and we can drill our way out of this."
Anger: "Why aren't those bastards drilling our way out of this?"
Bargaining: "Well maybe ANWR, the continental offshore, the tar sands, and slightly more efficient cars will fix it."
Depression: "Oh man, we're screwed, it's too big a problem for me, I might as well give up."
Acceptance: "I'm ready for the second half of the Age of Oil and I'm going to find a way forward."Stage One: Denial

My interview segment was an all-too-typical display of denial. Great: that's Stage One. It's a start.



Then I mused: How long have we been living on the banks of denial? And it slightly depressed me today to discover that I wrote an article (http://www.getreallist.com/article.php?story=20050728204722328) by that very title back in September 2005, which I could have written today:Energy will continue to get more and more expensive. In a short while, you won't be able to afford to fill the tank on an SUV. You will learn to like wearing sweaters, and living without A/C. If you live in a big city or a suburb, you will probably have to move. If you're in one of the red-hot real estate markets in the US, the value of your property will take a couple of sickening drops. Your money and investments will devalue. You will find it increasingly difficult to buy—or even get—food. Water will get scarcer, more expensive, and harder to clean. Let me tell you, it gives me absolutely no pleasure to say that I was right. I've been trying to help keep this from happening for over a decade, and I've never wanted to be right less in my life
Yet, there are critics who claim that people like me are part of some unnamed shadowy conspiracy of "liberal elites" determined to destroy the economy, and other even less charitable characterizations. They say we're all congenital doom-and-gloomers.
I used to puzzle over that, until I realized that it was just denial.
Most peak oil deniers, I have found, are incredibly resistant to any sort of detailed discussion involving facts and numbers, and I have learned better than to argue with them.
But the fire in my belly says that we had better hurry up and move on here, because time is a-wastin'.
Stage Two: Anger

Stage Two seems to have arrived. Just in the last few months, we've seen it everywhere in response to food shortages, fuel shortages, panic buying, huge price increases and crazy volatility in the markets.
Over the last week fuel price spikes, panic and outrage were seen in the UK as a two-day strike shut down the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, which in turn shut down the Forties Pipeline, taking over 40% of the UK's North Sea oil and gas production offline. As of yet I haven't seen much considered discussion about how that kind of vulnerability should inform future energy policy, but there's plenty of finger pointing going on.
In Congress, the anger was evident as well. And as usual, they came up with some terrible and short-sighted proposals.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a windfall oil profits tax, a notion supported by both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Such proposals always come up around earnings season for the oil companies, but they're a bad idea because oil companies have few economical prospects left, and reducing their economic prospects even further is counter-productive.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Senator Clinton and others, called for an investigation into market manipulation, speculation and possible gouging. Most senators also appear to support a temporary halt to filling the SPR (see my article of last week, "High Gasoline Prices Are Here to Stay (http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/gas+prices-oil+prices-peak+oil/674/)," on why that's a bad idea.)
Credit where it is due: President Bush was right to dismiss the suggestion, on the grounds that removing 68,000 barrels a day from an overall U.S. demand of 21 million barrels a day wouldn't help bring oil prices down.
Several senators also want to close the "Enron Loophole," and make energy trading subject to federal regulation. That much I fully support, since I've still got my own anger about the way they bent me over back in 2001.
Clinton and many other senators even proposed filing a WTO complaint against OPEC to pressure them into opening the spigots a little more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Congress might as well tilt at wind turbines.
Even President Bush was forced to address the energy price issue again—a topic he has studiously avoided while America cried uncle—but he deflected the blame.
"I firmly believe that, you know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course," he said during a news conference. "I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them."
As if he doesn't know that we can't drill our way out of this problem domestically!
I guess anger, like most things, comes around and goes around.
Anger is understandable, but it's not productive. We have to move on.
Stage Three: Bargaining

Bargaining seems to be the stage for our presidential contenders.
Senator McCain, joined by Senator Clinton, suggested a little gasoline tax holiday, which is akin to a first class upgrade on the Titanic.
Senator Obama called that one right, saying, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."
Indeed, a whole host of bargaining strategies are on offer from our leaders, such as:

Increasing production of biofuels and other alternative fuels such as coal-to-liquids (CTL), when it's already clear that the consequences of both are unacceptable, and that the contribution they could make is too little to make a tangible difference.
Raising the CAFE standard to 55 mpg by 2030, when PHEVs can already do that, and you can buy a car today anywhere in Europe that will do that. In 2030, remind me to mail them a letter saying thanks for nothin'.
Spending another $150 billion toward renewable energy research. That's great, and I'm all for it, but it's also roughly what we've already been paying every year for the war in Iraq. Given the challenges we're facing, we should be investing at least as much in domestic alternative energy and rail as we are spending on the war, which ultimately is about perpetuating a dying paradigm of fossil-fuel burning automobiles.
A lousy $1 billion for intercity rail, and $1.5 billion for public transit, when those are clearly—clearly—the most important and immediate investments we could contemplate. Instead of being at the bottom of the list, this should be at the top.I suspect that Senator Obama may be nearing the end of the Bargaining phase, since he has quite sensibly called for a complete overhaul of US energy policy.
Moving Forward

Whoever is elected to the presidency, the next four years virtually guarantee that he or she will soon see Stage Four: Depression. There are going to be some extremely painful and difficult choices to be made.
So I hope that Acceptance will not be far behind. We have a great deal of transformation to accomplish, and very little time to do it.
Each of us has to go through this process in our own way and time. Every peaker is going or has gone through it. After five years of going through it, I'd put myself almost completely in Acceptance, although I do revisit the previous stages from time to time—another dynamic Kübler-Ross observed. It just seems to be how we're wired.
It's difficult. So I have some sympathy for every position on peak oil, including denial, because I've been there myself.
However, I have found one thing to be true time and time again: Action feels a lot better than inaction. Talking to other people about it, making plans to deal with it, and taking action helps to still that gong banging away in the brain, and relieve the tightness in the chest.
Reducing your energy consumption not only saves you money, it feels a lot better than raging at oil producers.
It also helps—a lot—to know that I can improve my odds, and hedge the inevitable losses of rising prices for everything, by investing wisely in energy. It really helps to take the sting out of a $70 fillup to see a couple hundred, or couple thousand dollar gain in the ol' portfolio.
Take a moment to think about where you are in this process, and may that reflection inform your future choices well.
Your friendly Energy and Capital peak freak,
http://images.angelnexus.com/sigs/chris.gif
Chris

[bradclark1]

You are incapable of teaching anything to anybody. Your information comes from Google articles. You don't even know how to make heads or tails out of any of it, or scrutinize anything within them yourself. It snows in Alaska and freezes over every year. And your false beliefs in man-made global warming will not change any of it. This year set records up there. I don't see how you're making any point here. Snow is precipitation.
Let me see if I can teach you something. You posted this:
Here's some more of your global warming:
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html
"Anchorage digs out after record snow fall." All despite increasing CO2 and cow burps.
Your ignorance is showing through here. You show an article that you think has to do with global warming but all it says is it snowed a lot. News for you!! It snows every year in Alaska. I didn't have to google anything. You supplied the link to your piece of GW wisdom. What exactly does the amount of snow have to do with cooling or warming? It doesn't mean squat. It just means they had more than normal precipitation. And then:
No kidding. What does it have to do with average global warming temperatures? Where does the increased and sustained droplet of human produced CO2 come into play? I don't think you know what point you're trying to make here.
Well I don't know. You are the one that posted about GW = snowfall. Now you ask ME what one has to do with the other. Answer your own question! Again you confuse yourself so much you don't even know what you're saying.
Get ready to be more lonely in your gloom and doom outlook:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2238317.0.Doubt_is_cast_over_global_wa rming.php
Even more skepticism.
Hmm. Well you read the title but unfortunately you must have stopped there. Lets have a look.
Global temperatures may not increase over the next decade because of natural variations in the climate which will offset man-made warming, scientists predicted yesterday.

What he is saying is it "may" offset man-made global warming. He's not saying there is no global warming.
Lets look down further:
"Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
And then further:
If the model could accurately forecast other variables besides temperature, such as rainfall, it would be increasingly useful, but climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain, he added.
I guess I must be a little simple. Could you please explain where this is supposed to trash man-made global warming? To me it seems to support it. Is this another case of you being all confused?

[bradclark1]

Funny thing is Subman, If I were to put together my Master's Project with as many holes as these people put into their climate "studies", it would have never passed review. In a Master's program, you could never cherry pick your data, and only use the stuff you want to acheive an outcome and be taken seriously. That's why I don't trust that these people are actually doing things scientifically. Plus this:

Hurricane forecasts were rather embarassing to the "man-made" warming people, so they just sweep their inaccuracies under the rug.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html
Funny thing is if you do your masters as you do here you........... Look at your last sentence here. Then read what the article says.

In 2005, when Georgia Tech scientist Peter Webster co-authored a paper suggesting global warming had caused a spike in major hurricanes, for instance, Gray labeled him and others "medicine men" who were misleading the public.
Now where I went to school "had" was past tense so how can "had" mean forecasts?

[Sea Demon]

Let me see if I can teach you something.

You have no ability to teach, nor do you have any wisdom to offer on this subject. But you do have everything to learn.

Your ignorance is showing through here. You show an article that you think has to do with global warming but all it says is it snowed a lot. News for you!! It snows every year in Alaska. I didn't have to google anything. You supplied the link to your piece of GW wisdom. What exactly does the amount of snow have to do with cooling or warming? It doesn't mean squat. It just means they had more than normal precipitation.

Actually it means alot if you believe the major premises of Al Gore's movie. Or if you believe the IPCC and their forecasts of receding ice and reduced snow falls close to the poles. Of course it snows every year in Alaska. That's the point. The warming models derived by people from your nutty links and paid for "scientific organizations" show massive ice depletions and drop offs in snow fall. And how it totally relates to the less than 1% total of human produced CO2. They are wrong completely. And the evidence is overwhelming. I do love how you have to pretend it now means nothing now. It's rather humorous really.

Well I don't know. You are the one that posted about GW = snowfall. Now you ask ME what one has to do with the other. Answer your own question! Again you confuse yourself so much you don't even know what you're saying.

No I didn't. Your bass-ackwards here. I didn't say "GW=snowfall". Snow means cold. Record snowfalls mean very cold. And sustained cold in a simplistic way of explaining it. It also shows that your theory of man-made CO2 at less than 1% of totals is not driving planetary atmospheric warming. It couldn't. BTW, do you understand how they derive averages in atmospheric temperatures? Do you understand how that takes away from the argument of sustained warming, and how that argument has to assume natural emissions of various kinds would have to be a constant to support that theory? I know you don't. As I said, believe this junk science if it is what makes you happy.


What he is saying is it "may" offset man-made global warming. He's not saying there is no global warming.

Of no consequence. I guess you don't actually get the premise here. That there are naturally occuring factors which offset any warming. How can that be. Especially any cooling whatsoever when we're told by the paid for IPCC "scientists" that CO2 (human) is driving increased and sustained wearming and we're all going to die unless we reduce those levels. They're wrong, and I'm loving watching you guys try and save face. What a scream.

I guess I must be a little simple. Could you please explain where this is supposed to trash man-made global warming? To me it seems to support it. Is this another case of you being all confused?

I guess you still have not gotten your reading comprehension skills up to speed. It doesn't say what you think it says or want it to say. I know spin and redefining of words to fit an agenda is your speed, but for anybody who can actually read it, it puts alot of doubt into your belief of sustained CO2 vs. increased warming. It also puts into doubt being able to actually forecast ahead which is the whole issue in the first place. These global warming kooks don't have any clue what it will be like in 10 years, 20 years, or even a month from now. So your certainty of warming is bunk to begin with. I think most people are starting to see this anyway. That's why skepticism is growing in this junk.

[Sea Demon]

Funny thing is if you do your masters as you do here you..........Look at your last sentence here. Then read what the article says.

This post of yours makes no sense whatsoever. No surprise there. :roll:

Now where I went to school "had" was past tense so how can "had" mean forecasts?

You aren't making any worthy points here at all. Reading and comprehending what he's saying is that the global warming nut derived a theory somehow that global warming had caused hurricanes. And as a result, when they saw a warmer year a couple of years ago, he predicted hurricanes. The global warming nut was of course wrong. And now, instead of refine the theory, or admit error, bury it and pretend it never occured or has no significance. We'll be seeing more of it from the man-made warming types in the future. This is only the beginning. Your last response was full of it, and full of something else to boot.

[bradclark1]

Let me guess. Your masters is in Tap Dancing?

[Sea Demon]

Let me guess. Your masters is in Tap Dancing?

HAHA. :lol: :roll: Funny. Nope. It was in ME, and the project was in computational mechanics in Flight Dynamic Systems. I know how to do research. And how to refine theory. The scientists at the IPCC leave alot to be desired, and alot of questions go unanswered. And inconsistencies simply are not addressed. And theories like methane from cow belches damaging the atmosphere look to be guesses. I don't know, but that looks like unsubstantiated nonsense to me. It is neither proven, nor does it make actual sense when making comparisons to actual natural emissions, assuming of course those figures aren't static in their model. They look to be paid to acheive results that the UN and other intergovernmental bodies and environmental NGO's want.

You have to accept that there is reasonable skepticism that is warranted. Your fascist approach will not win you any followers. Just because someone at a scientific organization pushes a theory, it doesn't mean it's true, and everyone should shut up and accept it. Their refusal to address the simplest of inconsistencies makes me raise an eyebrow. And their total fanatical approach to eliminating anyone on the payroll who disagrees to "build a consensus" shows me something else. And it's not good at all.

[joegrundman]

thanks for that article, Fish. very informative

Sea Demon, Sea Demon...so very passionate about it....with such a collection of arguments....and you are a young earth creationist too, I hear. Is there a connection?

I like the bit where your argument has become "I know, you don't know, you can't teach, you can learn [from me]"

Anyway, the truth will out.


We won't limit production of CO2 et al. because there's no enthusiasm for it. No one really wants to stop it - not the us, not china, not india, not even europe.

And so will continue until either the oil becomes too expensive to use or the atmosphere has heated up beyond our willingness to tolerate or some technological solution arrives in time to save the day.

And if none of these happens, the leftist global conspiracy to eliminate capitilism will just have to find some other project. Maybe voting leads to Alzheimers or something

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon, Sea Demon...so very passionate about it....with such a collection of arguments....and you are a young earth creationist too, I hear. Is there a connection?

Oh joe. :lol: Where does one get the idea that being a Christian makes you an enemy of science? So many weird notions have come from the Internet. And this is one of them. I don't shy away from being a Christian in belief. Nor do I shy away from understanding scientific principles. This pathetic response from you is not even worth truly addressing. Really it isn't. Perhaps you have nothing to believe in, so you're desperate to believe in anything that comes your way in the form of weather scares and such. Geez.

Anyway, the truth will out.

Agreed. It's already coming out quite nicely.

We won't limit production of CO2 et al. because there's no enthusiasm for it. No one really wants to stop it - not the us, not china, not india, not even europe.

I don't dispute that. But evaluating the situation for what it's worth, it hardly looks like there's a tragedy wating in the wings. For what it's worth, I do see efforts being put into reducing pollution, and reuse of materials. I applaud those efforts myself. But I also see that we need crude oil products, and it's not going away anytime soon. Just the facts, like it or not. Driving up the price won't make it less necessary. It will only make it harder for people to live, go places, find jobs, and eat. If only the true believers could see the logic in that. If only.

And so will continue until either the oil becomes too expensive to use or the atmosphere has heated up beyond our willingness to tolerate or some technological solution arrives in time to save the day.

Yeah sure, using their theories and models, maybe in 100 years we would see an average temperature increase of 0.5-1 degree total if there are no natural weather variations or no other natural thermal factors like what the man-made warming theorists espouse. Just model everything in a static system, and model a linear increased CO2 emissions, even the less than 1% of the total leading to out of control thermal runaway. Just ignore all other factors to get your result. And ignore the actual stuff happening outside in actual weather systems.

And if none of these happens, the leftist global conspiracy to eliminate capitilism will just have to find some other project. Maybe voting leads to Alzheimers or something

:rotfl: That's funny joe. :up: The real problem is leading to rising costs of energy, rising costs of food, shortages in both, more unneeded governmental control and regulation over commerce, and useless international agreements that solve nothing than transfer money based on speculative theories.

[joegrundman]

Sea Demon, Sea Demon...so very passionate about it....with such a collection of arguments....and you are a young earth creationist too, I hear. Is there a connection?

Oh joe. :lol: Where does one get the idea that being a Christian makes you an enemy of science? So many weird notions have come from the Internet. And this is one of them. I don't shy away from being a Christian in belief. Nor do I shy away from understanding scientific principles. This pathetic response from you is not even worth truly addressing. Really it isn't. Perhaps you have nothing to believe in, so you're desperate to believe in anything that comes your way in the form of weather scares and such. Geez.


I was just asking. I notice a convergence between christians and global warming skeptisism and I'm curious why. I wouldn't have thought it was an issue that stirred Chirstians up in particular.

But also, i'd like to point out that creationist does not equal christian, even if creationists are wont to assume it does.It is not the case that i think Christians are hostile to science. I know many Christian scientists - they tend not to be creationists. But as a self-confessed creationist you have a demonstrated track-record in placing evidence secondary to the desired answer.

Anyway, where did you get from all this what i believe, apart from the fact that I'm not a christian. I'm just impressed by your tireless, dogmatic, certainty when it is obvious that at best you don't know.

Personally, i hope there's nothing too much to global warming. I travel by air a lot and so my carbon footprint is larger than most. this isn't something i personally wish to stop.

I suspect anyway that rising oil prices will largely solve the problem within a few decades anyway. And as prices rise, alternatives will become more profitable, then big US energy companies will change their tune and Conservative Americans will all start singing a different song wrt alternative energy.


Anyway, the truth will out.

Agreed. It's already coming out quite nicely.


not really - it's too soon to tell and there is plenty of evidence that does not support your viewpoint


We won't limit production of CO2 et al. because there's no enthusiasm for it. No one really wants to stop it - not the us, not china, not india, not even europe.

I don't dispute that. But evaluating the situation for what it's worth, it hardly looks like there's a tragedy wating in the wings. For what it's worth, I do see efforts being put into reducing pollution, and reuse of materials. I applaud those efforts myself. But I also see that we need crude oil products, and it's not going away anytime soon. Just the facts, like it or not. Driving up the price won't make it less necessary. It will only make it harder for people to live, go places, find jobs, and eat. If only the true believers could see the logic in that. If only.

Oil prices are going up anyway, and this of course has economic consequences.

And so will continue until either the oil becomes too expensive to use or the atmosphere has heated up beyond our willingness to tolerate or some technological solution arrives in time to save the day.

Yeah sure, using their theories and models, maybe in 100 years we would see an average temperature increase of 0.5-1 degree total if there are no natural weather variations or no other natural thermal factors like what the man-made warming theorists espouse. Just model everything in a static system, and model a linear increased CO2 emissions, even the less than 1% of the total leading to out of control thermal runaway. Just ignore all other factors to get your result. And ignore the actual stuff happening outside in actual weather systems.

then there's nothing to be stressed about is there, coz our behaviour will not change until we are forced to - it's part of what makes us so human.


And if none of these happens, the leftist global conspiracy to eliminate capitilism will just have to find some other project. Maybe voting leads to Alzheimers or something

:rotfl: That's funny joe. :up: The real problem is leading to rising costs of energy, rising costs of food, shortages in both, more unneeded governmental control and regulation over commerce, and useless international agreements that solve nothing than transfer money based on speculative theories.

Glad you liked it, it made me smile too. But nothing can be blamed on the global warming movement in this regard because no actual steps have been taken yet.

[Stealth Hunter]

. . . and the politically motivated nonsense about so called 'Global Warming' will also continue.

Global Warming is always a nice topic for the politicians to spur up the beach with and build their little sand castles of political stability.

With that said, however, nobody in this thread is really qualified to say if Global Warming does exist or if it doesn't.:roll:

[Sea Demon]

I was just asking. I notice a convergence between christians and global warming skeptisism and I'm curious why.

Really?? You seriously believe there are no Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists that are skeptical of man-made global warming? You don't think there are Christians who buy into it? Where is your evidence of such a convergance?

But as a self-confessed creationist you have a demonstrated track-record in placing evidence secondary to the desired answer.

:nope: :D My goodness. Look at the global warming movement in it's entirety. It's totally based on placing actual evidence as a secondary concern. It's based on believing static models of climate systems which do not exist in the real world, and based primarily on the last 100 years. Which is a sliver in Earth's entire existence. It is every bit as much an act of faith as is a belief that Earth, science, and remarkable universal constants such as gravity are derived from God. And at least religion acknowledges that belief in the origins of life coming from God is a matter of faith. Warming types tell us their beliefs are fact...which they're not. I know how to seperate religious faith from scientific principles. Nor am I alone in that ability. Regardless of what you yourself believe as a matter of faith, or no faith in anything at all, it is shortsighted to believe those who do find inspiration in religious faith are stupid or incapable of scientific study and research. One does not disprove the other. Your own belief in the origination of Earth and life as being not from God does not affect me in any way, nor does it make me see you as someone to ridicule. I realize many who have no faith cannot really understand this, and develop their opinion on this from articles they read on the Internet. Your own ideas of convergance of GW with any skepticism shows me that you may have been led to believe some of these notions yourself.

As far as me being tiresome, I'm tired and going to sleep. And I rarely have time to log in to this site anymore. I don't think I've logged on in 3 weeks. Everytime I come back though, I'm amazed this topic is still being discussed.


when it is obvious that at best you don't know.

As I said many times before, it is for them to prove their theories and assertions. They throw out their contrived theories and say "prove me wrong". That's not the way it works. It's more like, they don't know, and have not proven reliable in any type of forecasting they make.

I suspect anyway that rising oil prices will largely solve the problem within a few decades anyway. And as prices rise, alternatives will become more profitable, then big US energy companies will change their tune and Conservative Americans will all start singing a different song wrt alternative energy.

Agreed.

not really - it's too soon to tell and there is plenty of evidence that does not support your viewpoint

There's not a whole lot of evidence backing their assertions. And it's up to them to prove their theories. Not for me to disprove them. And they're not doing a good job at all.

Glad you liked it, it made me smile too. But nothing can be blamed on the global warming movement in this regard because no actual steps have been taken yet.

Yes. I found it humorous. What about biofuels and food shortages? What about the pressure to limit domestic drilling and refinement? Where do you think those pushes come from?

[Stealth Hunter]

Regardless of what you yourself believe as a matter of faith, or no faith in anything at all, it is shortsighted to believe those who do find inspiration in religious faith are stupid or incapable of scientific study and research. One does not disprove the other.

Although you must admit that the majority of creationists who have the power to decide what is and what isn't scientifically correct typically align with their belief in how Earth began... with God's will... 6,000 years ago... and for some reason they still believe in the illusion that we're special in the universe.

Your own belief in the origination of Earth and life as being not from God does not affect me in any way, nor does it make me see you as someone to ridicule. I realize many who have no faith cannot really understand this, and develop their opinion on this from articles they read on the Internet.

Ridicule the statements made by creationists; do not ridicule the people themselves. Critique them and make note of their flaws, but do not mock them. That's one of the biggest problems that arises when one of these debates breaks out.

The fact is, it's hard not to ridicule the belief that man has always existed as we see him today, even though we have contradicting evidence. It's hard not to ridicule the statement that the Earth is 6,000 years old even though we have proof that it's not. It's hard not to ridicule those who ridicule others for their statements of science (Ken Ham, for instance, on Atheists... and Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron on Atheists... and evolution; that goes for both Ham and the other two, though).

With that said, I'm going to make the statement that I find most of the beliefs creationists hold to be just plain ridiculous... however, I respect their views. It's when they get out into the open and start shoving their ideas down the throats of others that I get extremely annoyed (well, pissed) with them.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

This thread =

http://www.elitetrading.de/forum/attachments/ressourcen/3005d1201908390-traurig_aktienpower_fan_club-blank_picard_facepalm.jpg

[bradclark1]

You have to accept that there is reasonable skepticism that is warranted.
I whole heartedly accept it. I've read both sides and made a decision. Until someone comes out with something other than "it's political" "it's a plot against the third world" or just "no it's not" my mind remains unchanged. The thing that takes any credibility from the anti-gw crowd is that there is no organization in the rebuttal. No scientific organization that says no and here's why. Most so called scientist aren't even specialized in anything remotely to do with the climate. It's rare that the reasons for the rebuttals even match in data. If both sides could come up with a standard formula for measuring it would cut down on most bs from both sides but that ain't never going to happen. As I've said numerous times I hope I'm wrong but I've seen nothing to change my mind. I don't argue preferences I argue what I see.

[bradclark1]

This thread =

http://www.elitetrading.de/forum/attachments/ressourcen/3005d1201908390-traurig_aktienpower_fan_club-blank_picard_facepalm.jpg
Stop bitching! You can set your watch by how often this argument pops up. We are doing a service.

[Fish]

Oh joe. :lol: Where does one get the idea that being a Christian makes you an enemy of science?
From here maybe?:hmm:


Science Equals Murder [John Derbyshire]


In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

And, Stein (from Expelled) on Fox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Stop bitching! You can set your watch by how often this argument pops up. We are doing a service.

:rotfl::rotfl: Yup, gave me an excuse to use that pic :up:

[Sea Demon]

I whole heartedly accept it. I've read both sides and made a decision. Until someone comes out with something other than "it's political" "it's a plot against the third world" or just "no it's not" my mind remains unchanged. The thing that takes any credibility from the anti-gw crowd is that there is no organization in the rebuttal. No scientific organization that says no and here's why. Most so called scientist aren't even specialized in anything remotely to do with the climate. It's rare that the reasons for the rebuttals even match in data. If both sides could come up with a standard formula for measuring it would cut down on most bs from both sides but that ain't never going to happen. As I've said numerous times I hope I'm wrong but I've seen nothing to change my mind. I don't argue preferences I argue what I see.

OK. Fair enough.


From here maybe?

Stupid. Just like Peak Oil. Do you really think that view is held by most Christians Fish? When did Ben Stein become the Representative of Christianity? :roll: :lol: More of the same nonsense from you I guess.

[Fish]

[When did Ben Stein become the Representative of Christianity? :roll: :lol:
Well, he seems to think he is.:yep:

[Tchocky]

Ben Stein is Jewish, guys.