Jump to content

Peak Oil Production & the journey down to empty?


Are you worried about oil running out ?  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you worried about oil running out ?

    • yes
      11
    • no
      12


Recommended Posts

you use "wikipedia" to support your argument do you even understand how this so called encyclopedia works any tom dick or harry can submit a so called fact to it and it then gets published and then folks read it and take it to be fact.

 

Perhaps you should outline your points of disagreement with Wikipedia's description of the scientific method.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Earlier in this thread the use of "energy efficiant light bulbs" was mentioned here is another couple of thoughts for you all how much energy was used to produce said light bulb compared to the old fashioned inefficiant light bulb. and when said green light bulb is dud how do you dispose of said green light bulb. if I want to dispose of one at work it is treated as hazardous waste due to the mercury content. mercury being one of the most toxic substances getting in to the food chain is not my idea of being green.

Oh yeah arrabia what car do you drive or do you ride your bike and walk every where.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier in this thread the use of "energy efficiant light bulbs" was mentioned here is another couple of thoughts for you all how much energy was used to produce said light bulb compared to the old fashioned inefficiant light bulb. and when said green light bulb is dud how do you dispose of said green light bulb. if I want to dispose of one at work it is treated as hazardous waste due to the mercury content. mercury being one of the most toxic substances getting in to the food chain is not my idea of being green.

 

I replaced all my incandescent light bulbs with energy saving bulbs about 2 years ago. I haven't really noticed a reduction in my leccy bill, but then prices have risen in the last two years and my bill hasn't. The cool thing is that I haven't had to replace a single bulb since I made the switch whereas before I was replacing one every couple of months.

 

You make a valid point about the disposal of these things. But in general we are getting a lot more savvy about what goes into the ground and what gets reclaimed/recycled. I think the procedure for disposing of these things is the same as for strip light tubes (they are basically the same thing, just curled up) but as I said, I haven't had to dispose of any yet so I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Earlier in this thread the use of "energy efficiant light bulbs" was mentioned here is another couple of thoughts for you all how much energy was used to produce said light bulb compared to the old fashioned inefficiant light bulb. and when said green light bulb is dud how do you dispose of said green light bulb. if I want to dispose of one at work it is treated as hazardous waste due to the mercury content. mercury being one of the most toxic substances getting in to the food chain is not my idea of being green.

Oh yeah arrabia what car do you drive or do you ride your bike and walk every where.

 

So you really are an environmentalist at heart, I agree that you shouldn't take anything that any organisation says without some measure for critical analysis.

 

I also think that there wouldn't be this level of discussion or awareness regarding environmental issues if it wasn't for the green lobby. I actually think we agree on the important issues. If anyone doesn't form arguments based on reasoned study and depends on emotive issues it shouldn't really be tolerated, and this is something both sides can be accused of. If you want to build your case you should try and quote/reference some sources giving examples of what you are describing.

 

I cant remember where it came from, but to paraphrase a quote that could be apt.

If you agree with everything you read, you best be worried!
Link to post
Share on other sites
you use "wikipedia" to support your argument do you even understand how this so called encyclopedia works any tom dick or harry can submit a so called fact to it and it then gets published and then folks read it and take it to be fact.

 

If you don't belive in Wikipedia here are a few links to other sites describing the Scientific Method.

 

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

 

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

 

Or do you not want the arguement confused by facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not doubting the theory of scientific research we all know how its supposed to be , What I cant understand is everyones belief that all scientists on one side of the argument are in the pay of industry therefore are lying but all the scientists on the other side of the argument who are being payed by environmental groups are as honest as the day is long. If a scientist is asked to prove global warming is caused by humans and he comes back and says no sorry I don't think it is I recon its caused by termites farting lets kill all the termites do you think said environmental group is going to publish this or ignore it. also do you think the scientist is going to get anymore funding for his research.

As for the termites The total weight of termites on this planet far excedes the total weight of humans by several factors of 10, these termites consume an awful lot of carboniferous material and they also fart. so lets remember it is a minority of humans causing the co2 emmissions but all termites are guilty

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not doubting the theory of scientific research we all know how its supposed to be , What I cant understand is everyones belief that all scientists on one side of the argument are in the pay of industry therefore are lying but all the scientists on the other side of the argument who are being payed by environmental groups are as honest as the day is long.

 

No, people believe that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who accept man-made global warming are generally honest. Since most climate scientists are funded by government bodies, what motive would they have for lying ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm going to have to take this one point at a time:

What I cant understand is everyones belief that all scientists on one side of the argument are in the pay of industry therefore are lying but all the scientists on the other side of the argument who are being payed by environmental groups are as honest as the day is long.

 

The main reason I believe the Climate Change sceptics are wrong is because they are in a minority. For every sceptical scientist there are 100 who believe Global Warming is real. Secondly, only a few of the scientists warning of global warming actually work directly for environmental charities or campaign groups. The vast majority work for Universities or government funded research institutes which are entirely neutral on this subject. On the other hand, I challenge you to find even one scientist who is a sceptic who does not get at least part of his funding from the energy industry.

 

As for the termites The total weight of termites on this planet far excedes the total weight of humans by several factors of 10, these termites consume an awful lot of carboniferous material and they also fart. so lets remember it is a minority of humans causing the co2 emmissions but all termites are guilty

 

Here you are making a common mistake. You are confusing the natural greenhouse effect with man-made global warming. Without the natural greenhouse effect caused by volcanic CO2, water vapour and termites (and cows) farting, this planet would be a frozen ball of ice supporting no life whatsoever. The volcanic CO2 is new to the atmosphere but is balanced by the amount of carbon absorbed by plants which does not get released back into the environment when the plant (or animal that ate the plant) dies and breaks down. This carbon which is captured is buried and after a few million years becomes a fossil fuel.

 

The problem is that we humans are digging up these fossil fuels, burning them and thus releasing all the stored carbon back into the atmosphere causing global warming. These fossil fuels took billions of years to accumulate and we have chucked half of it back into the atmosphere in a couple of hundred years, how can that not have a severe effect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

You have got that 100% right arabia terra , not that i myself am a scientist and yes the planet probably has been warming for 10,000 years but the major concern is really about how quick it is taking place PRESENTLY and that us and a whole bunch of other species are in danger because of it . by the way sheep shagger do you own an evinrude outboard? when you could go by wind ? as thats the way i would like to travel in the future and im no speakin aboot da wind dat blows oot da hol o dee muckle sphincter when your runnin the local shop for local people ? I think you know me quite well.....

But in this thread the danger i am trying to point out is the economic and life style changes that are ahead , rather than the climate change bit that probably now will not reverse for several centuries even if we stop burning all fossil fuels NOW ., all the more so if there is no strategy in place to deal with it , at the end of the day the planetery population of 6 billion + and rising is being artificially sustained due to the industrialisation of the food & medicine industries.

If we dont prepare we could descend into anarchy , war & chaos on a scale thats well of the scale of all that has gone before.

Just think :- why has russia been flying there old cold war bombers temptingly close to ours and other nations airspace ?that in the past flew around with a nuclear payload , why IS Iran so keen to have a nuke & da yanks so keen to stop them ? because they are are very rich in what remains of the planets fossil fuels whilst the biggest consumer america is not , and niether are we ,

I myself am not worried as such but more concerned for my children and think about it more in terms of what would be best for them . the only thing i have come up with so far is to move to somewhere with a better climate for sustaining our selves from the land , of course it can be done from here as well but it would be a hard old pick and my wife doesn't like salt fish or reestit mutton ! .... Then again i guess starvation can stimulate the hunger to a point where that widna be a problem.

The only other thing i can think of at the moment is ... if i win the lottery i will get mesel a large capacity underground diesel storage beneath my new mini mansion that can hold a few thousand ton!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

where droilker is this better climate going to be? as you pointed out the climate is changing.

take the bus when getting in de errands arrabia terra or go with your dad when he is getting his, much more environmentally friendly sollution than using an internal combustion engine that would otherwise be standing idle causing no pollution.

environmental campaigners are great at telling every one what they are doing wrong but pure sharn at coming up with realistic sollutions and that is what people need not sound bites and propaganda.

As for governments not having a stake in keeping us all crapping it over environmental dissaster that we keep being told that is upon us just look at the new green taxes that GB has come up with to help ballance the books, but how many real measures have been brought in to deal with said dissaster.

NONE

Bob Dole tha failed pollitition got everone going with live earth but does he really believe what he preaches, I seriously doubt it CHEVROLETTE was the sponsor for pootle sake they brag about having a car that can do 37 mpg on the motorway. REALLY GREEN THEN

Ole Bob also flies first class even on short hops, his mansion has sprinklers on the lawn and is lit up like a lumpsooker xmas tree. Oh yeah he preaches about carbon offset great for the rich damn all use for the rest of us. and just how much good is carbon offset when the damn trees were planted any way.

So I'll stick to my opinion that the environMENTAL movement is FULL OF SH*T 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and the russian bombers The UK government was rattling sabres demanding that the ruskies hand over one of their citizens to stand trial in the UK for killing one of their traitors Don't you just think that might of had something to do with it. just a polite way of telling TB and GB to piss off abd mind their own buisness

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

Well i guess if it is gettin warmer i should likly byd whar im at , yes d russians are likly a bunch we wid be best tryin ta keep pals we , they have major reserves waitin tae be tapped once the ice draws back a bit more dat we will need tae purchase.

Iwid lik tae see the ice afore it melts , oh and sheepshagger why dus du gee green peacers such a hard time? da poor lettuce munchers are na as bad as some organisations lik maybe da jehoovas wha just spik a lot of drite , but then you joost hae ta open da door naked and warmly invite them in and der away.

Oh and seein dat du kens a bit aboot da trade , dus du think du could predict the peak? or do you joost lie aroond yun rigs eatin fry ups atween da daily dose o spankin your monkeys??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...