Al Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation's racist


petros
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Article from Reuters stating that for past 5 years or so the oil industry has been finding about 15-20 billion new barrels of oil a year. The world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil per year. The arithmetic works against us here. As a result, cheap oil is never coming back. Peak oil doesnt mean oil will run out, it means all forms of energy will become more expensive. Hence, less pollution as we burn less, and less greenhouse gases. Al Gore wins!

--

Sucker!
 
mentalfloss
Avatar
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Peak oil doesnt mean oil will run out, it means all forms of energy will become more expensive. Hence, less pollution as we burn less, and less greenhouse gases. Al Gore wins!

--

No, once you get past peak oil, it means more pollution because you have tap into dirtier and more volatile reserves.
 
petros
Avatar
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, once you get past peak oil, it means more pollution because you have tap into dirtier and more volatile reserves.

Hell no. You use your worst first Then you go for the sweet stuff. Heavy oil has something in it that is very very valuable. Sulphur.
 
damngrumpy
Avatar
#34
Al Gore got swept up in the climate change debate to say the least he is out there on his
own trip through the universe. I must be one hell of a racist because I question almost
everything not just the story of climate change. Oh I think there is a measure of that no
doubt but it is a natural thing, it has been happening since the beginning of time. Climate
change was occurring for centuries and the present change has become noticeable and
people are reacting to it as if it has just begun. I sometimes wonder at the arrogance of man
thinking that we can stop, slow down or prevent a natural occurrence of nature.
I think we should put Al Gore and David Suzuki together on their thrones, side by side and
have them command the tide not to come in at the sea shore.
No I don't agree with Al Gore, but then again I don't think we as people should be allowed to
leave a mess for others to clean up. I have no problem with ensuring we are aware of
clean air and water. Just because the sky is not falling does not give us the right to pollute
our world. Gore is nuts, but then again Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party crowd are just as
crazy, but then again these assorted whack jobs on all sides provide us with public theatre
and our steady supply of political Entertainment Tonight as it were.
It is becoming so crazy we soon won't be able to take reality seriously.
 
petros
Avatar
+1
#35
I'm glad climate changed back to normal around here. I'm days away from one of the best harvests we've seen in a decades. High quality and heavy. Currently sitting at 22% moisture but after todays heat (30C) I'll be combining by the weekend.


Amen.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I'm glad climate changed back to normal around here. I'm days away from one of the best harvests we've seen in a decades. High quality and heavy. Currently sitting at 22% moisture but after todays heat (30C) I'll be combining by the weekend.


Amen.

Well the thing is, climate scientist said that normal climate may happen only as a precursor to massive global warming. I don't know how they came about it but it was a call to stay the course and keep up the pressure.
 
petros
#37
How come ocean cooling leads to droughts in Mid West USA and Africa?
 
EagleSmack
#38
You're not asking me are you?
 
petros
+1
#39
I'm asking those whose minds have been reGorerranged.
 
EagleSmack
#40
Understood.

 
mentalfloss
+2
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How come ocean cooling leads to droughts in Mid West USA and Africa?

 
coldstream
Avatar
#42
Al Gore seems to be rolling in frustration these days. He hasn't been able to cash in his billion dollar investments in Carbon Credit derivatives, and he's been blaming the media, scientists who won't cave to the contrived pseudo science of AGW, and now everyone who has the temerity to nay say on what is nothing but a financial fraud and burying this hysteria ever deeper in back sections of newpapers, or the still reliable public television nature shows.

It's his plan that will impose austerity and impoverishment on the world, and especially the developing the world. That makes Al the Racist, and big Jim Crow political boss. But in honesty i think he's nuts, he's off his rocker.. it seems to me people are paying less and less attention to his ravings.. and that is making him even crazier.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 30th, 2011 at 02:06 PM..
 
petros
Avatar
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

And the prior 8 storms were how intense? Did they make the news?

AccuWeather.com Expert Tropical Forecaster Dan Kottlowski added, "We do see some changes in the overall pattern across the Atlantic."
Kottlowski continued, "The water temps are not nearly as warm as they were last year, and also the upper air pattern looks slightly different... than last year, so that could have an impact as to where that subtropical high, that big high pressure area that helps guide tropical storms, sets up."
"It may weaken or actually reposition itself a little bit to the northeast as we get later in the season, which would allow more of a storm track closer to Florida and also up the East Coast," Kottlowski concluded.
--The future state of the ongoing La Niņa
La Niņa is a phenomenon that occurs when the surface waters in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific are colder than normal. La Niņa results in low wind shear, especially in the main tropical development area in the Atlantic. Shear refers to strong winds that are high in the atmosphere. Wind shear is a "hurricane killer," in that it can hinder storm development as well as break up existing storms.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#44
But Petros... the climate is changing. The only way we can stop the change is by giving billions away to under developed nations and buying carbon credits.

P.S. The Earth had a fever we were told... does it have a cold now?
 
petros
Avatar
+2
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

But Petros... the climate is changing. The only way we can stop the change is by giving billions away to under developed nations and buying carbon credits.

P.S. The Earth had a fever we were told... does it have a cold now?

For $75 and a pack of smokes, I know a guy who can toss some magic powder into a fire, shake his rattle, stomp his stick a few times and say a few hiyiyis and it'll go away.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No, once you get past peak oil, it means more pollution because you have tap into dirtier and more volatile reserves.

But you must use more energy to get it, which is not economic viable at a certain point. There is the EROEI ratio, energy return on energy invested. Which means it used to take one barrel of oil to get 100, now using one barrel of oil only finds 10 barrels or so. A major drop in 100 years.You must invest more energy to get less now.

Oil used to gush just below the surface in Ontario and Pennsylvania one hundred years ago. Drilling was cheap and fast for anyone. Now oil is harder to find and the EROEI give a poorer return. So we are drilling into areas that are more difficult like the Gulf of Mexico where blowouts are more common. Blowouts in the old days occurred because there was so much oil and it was a cause of joy, not anymore.

Tar sands and shale have a low EROEI, which is why they cause so much environmental damage. Takes a lot to get the stuff. Sweet crude oil is the most fantastic stuff going.

Here's a good discussion.

--
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
Avatar
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

But you must use more energy to get it, which is not economic viable at a certain point. There is the EROEI ratio, energy return on energy invested. Which means it used to take one barrel of oil to get 100, now using one barrel of oil only finds 10 barrels or so. A major drop in 100 years.You must invest more energy to get less now.

Oil used to gush just below the surface in Ontario and Pennsylvania one hundred years ago. Drilling was cheap and fast for anyone. Now oil is harder to find and the EROEI give a poorer return. So we are drilling into areas that are more difficult like the Gulf of Mexico where blowouts are more common. Blowouts in the old days occurred because there was so much oil and it was a cause of joy, not anymore.

The crux of your argument assumes that the energy used to retrieve the oil in the ground is oil based. If the drilling is fueled by other sources of energy, then yes, it will cost more than current but it will yield you the full quote of oil for what you need the oil for. Certainly the economic cost of drilling increases as oil becomes harder to find. But the high economic cost will also lead to a natural shift by the consumers (over time) away from oil as alternative transporation now too expensive will become more economically viable.

But as long as there is oil somewhere in the ground, and people are willing to pay for it, it can and will be drilled.
 
Tonington
#48
 
DaSleeper
+1
#49
Forty seven posts without a pie chart or a graph......simply amazing
 
petros
+4
#50
 
EagleSmack
+2
#51
 
dumpthemonarchy
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

The crux of your argument assumes that the energy used to retrieve the oil in the ground is oil based. If the drilling is fueled by other sources of energy, then yes, it will cost more than current but it will yield you the full quote of oil for what you need the oil for. Certainly the economic cost of drilling increases as oil becomes harder to find. But the high economic cost will also lead to a natural shift by the consumers (over time) away from oil as alternative transporation now too expensive will become more economically viable.

But as long as there is oil somewhere in the ground, and people are willing to pay for it, it can and will be drilled.

Peak oil just means the end of cheap oil, no big deal, there's lots of other kinds of energy out there, but it's all far more expensive. Oil has amazing qualities that make it cheap and very effective to us. It is easy and cheap to transport, the tech to get it is old and easy to use-usually, it is easy to devise a process to safely burn it, it packs a punch, one barrel has the energy of man working for about five years. Is uranium this cool? No.

There is nothing out there to replace oil. Consumer demand is fianancial, capital itself does not create physical energy that powers cars. No manufacturer will build cars by the millions if gas is $3-6 a litre because there won't be enough disposable income to pay for the gas. Nor can we buy cars that are 2-5 times more expensive than they are now. Peak oil means we will make less because our standard of living will drop considerably as everything becomes more expensive so we will have less.
 

Similar Threads

22
Al Gore to battle global cooling
by Scott Free | Nov 15th, 2008
34
Global Warming?
by crit13 | Mar 23rd, 2007
no new posts