« Rachel Alexandra Wins the Preakness | Main | What Obama's Evil Twin would have said at the WHCD »

News Flash: Polar Ice Caps Not Melting

James Delingpole brings us the news that a team of global warming explorers headed up to the North Pole to bring attention to all the damage global warming is wreaking on the polar ice caps. Sadly, they ran into a variety of problems that subfreezing temperatures tend to cause, one of which was they found that the ice caps are not melting but - shock!- are freezing.

They set out to the high arctic 73 days ago full of high hopes. They were going to tramp all the way to the North Pole. (But were frustrated by the unseasonal cold.) They were going to march 1000 km (they managed 434). Above all, they were going to raise awareness of "climate change" by drilling lots of holes in the polar ice cap so as to show how worryingly thin it is, and in how imminent danger of doom. (But their equipment broke in the freezing temperatures and anyway, as Christopher Booker reported the other day, there are US Army buoys which already do this job perfectly well and have found that since last March the ice has thickened by "at least half a metre").

And now to cap it all (ho ho), comes the still more tragic news that the Arctic isn't warming up dramatically after all. According to figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute - as posted by Steven Goddard on the inestimable Watts Up With That site - Arctic mean temperatures have barely changed since the start of their records in 1958. The Arctic was in fact warmer in the 1940s than it is now, but cooled between 1940 and 1980.

This is not the first time global warming explorers conducted farces like this one and ended up looking foolish.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35711.

Comments (57)

MSM to report -- O... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

MSM to report -- Obama stops global warming!!!!

Fat ALbert is not going to ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Fat ALbert is not going to be happy. He's got a lot riding on GW. You might say that his companies life depends on it. Wanna buy some carbon credits?

To deny either globa... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:


To deny either global warming OR cooling is foolish.
Postulating that a single species can affect either natural phenomonon except in an extremely LOCALIZED manner is supreme arrogance.

When all is said and done, the only "solution" is to adapt to the particular.

Anything else is moot.

Global warming causes cold ... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Global warming causes cold tempratures!

Doublethink is easy!

But al gores brain is... (Below threshold)
marc:

But al gores brain is

According to an item at Ant... (Below threshold)

According to an item at Anthony Watts place, they had to relocate the North Pole to get any story at all (besides nearly starving to death in the extreme heat).

No word yet on what the models predict from the shit of the center of rotation a hundred klics.

Oh goodie!! Finally someone... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Oh goodie!! Finally someone has proven once and for all that humans don't create any pollution whatsoever and that man's impact on the planet is nothing new and has been happening for millions of years. Or least as long as Adam and Eve were breathing CO2 in teh Garden of Eden.

Or not.

That's one LONG ... Oh, you... (Below threshold)

That's one LONG ... Oh, you meant "shift." My bad.

How dare they try to bring ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

How dare they try to bring facts into this!

Don't they know the science has been settled? Gore told us so! He's got an Oscar and Nobel to prove he's right!

What a bunch of miserable f... (Below threshold)
914:

What a bunch of miserable fools. Reminds me of the trolls on here.

Another lazy, "dog-dangling... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Another lazy, "dog-dangling" Saturday, huh, Jake?


So, I guess the Prince Of Wales had some extra money laying around and said, "You know what would be fun? Let's send a bunch of gullible global warming suckers to the North Pole so they can document how long it takes for their fingers and toes to lose feeling! Ah haha! Oh, cheerio! More Tea?" Yeah, those royals are a laugh a minute. This is a cute clip they have up at the website: http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/gallery_video.aspx?id=97

I KNEW Obama would stop glo... (Below threshold)
Bob:

I KNEW Obama would stop global warming - I just didn't think he'd do it this soon. What a guy!

Lets see, which one are we ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lets see, which one are we going to believe, computer models or reality. When you use a computer to model something you don't understand, you end up with ignorance at the speed of light, but because the results are from a computer, the ignorant believe it. It's easy to spot the ignorant because they label CO2 as pollution.

There's not a single shred of evidence apart from the simplistic computer models that links CO2 to global warming. In fact, the high resolution ice cores show that something else triggers warming and that CO2 is a result of that warming. The CLOUD experiments now being done at CERN are exploring the link between the Sun's magnetic activity, cosmic rays and clouds. This is REAL science testing a theory that explains ALL the observed and proxy climate data including the current cooling trend. A trend the IPCC admits, but attributes to a strong La Nino event, which is stupid as it's not a global event.

The results of the CLOUD experiments won't be available until 2010, but the environmental extremists and scammers like Al Gore know their time is running out and that's why they want to bind the U.S. with carbon reduction treaties. Why, because the environmental religion demands that humans are the cause of bad things, and the scammers are looking to make lots of money selling carbon offsets, the equivalent of Catholic indulgences. History repeats itself as science has been once again been hijacked by a religion.

It has been happenin... (Below threshold)
MPR:


It has been happening since the GWing scare began. Every time liberals try to make science fit the agenda they fall flat on their faces. Usually in the snow. A good article yesterday in AmericanThinker by R.H. Lee made me LOL several times.

The Catlin Ice Follies - Richard Henry Lee
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_catlin_ice_follies.html

ROLF, LMAO,LMFAO as cliché ... (Below threshold)
G.:

ROLF, LMAO,LMFAO as cliché as they are, would fit nicely here.

Global Warming
hahahahaha
To borrow from Bugs
What a bunch of moroons.

ROFL, LMAO,LMFAO as cliché ... (Below threshold)
G.:

ROFL, LMAO,LMFAO as cliché as they are, would fit nicely here.

Global Warming
hahahahaha
To borrow from Bugs
What a bunch of moroons.

I am not a scientist, howev... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I am not a scientist, however I have lived six decades. I finally figured out what causes global warming. One day, not long ago. I noticed a bright light in the sky. I read somewhere that light was at a varying distance from where I was but averaged about 93 million miles. I have noticed over time, when that light is overhead. It tends to be warmer than when that light is not visible in the sky. I will bet that light has something to do with global warming, and little else. If we want to cut down on carbon dioxide. Block the exhaust passages on Democratic politicians. Let them breath in but not 0ut as they emit CO2. Notice. Everything we eat depends on CO2. Idiots.

Personally, I always fall b... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Personally, I always fall back on that NASA study from a couple of years ago where they showed the average surface temp of Venus, Mars and Earth all closely followed solar activity. That's pretty much the last nail in the coffin for "global warming" for those of us that understand heat transfer.

<a href="http://www.arctic.... (Below threshold)
jmc:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_bond.html

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

*sigh*

One knows this will make no difference, and a bunch of links from non scientifc sources will be posted in rebuttal.

<a href="http://wattsupwith... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Arctic (Non) Warming Since 1958 ォ Watts Up With That?

Shrug.

JMC - would you argue that the Danish Meteorological Institute has a reason to lie?

One knows this wil... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
One knows this will make no difference, and a bunch of links from non scientifc sources will be posted in rebuttal.

There are two issues here. First global warming and second what's causing it. Your links say noting about what's causing it. The C.L.O.U.D. experiments going on at CERN are exploring the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. We already know the sun's magnetic activity varies greatly over several overlapping cycles and we also know that the sun's magnetic activity changes the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere. CERN's C.L.O.U.D. experiments are measuring the effect cosmic rays have on cloud formation at various altitudes and under various atmospheric conditions.

Here's why this is important. Just a slight increase in the right kind of clouds would cool the global climate significantly more than the theoretical effect of CO2 supposedly causes warming. Also there are many direct and proxy observations of climate that CO2 can't explain such as the warming and cooling events in the past 2500 years, or the fact that high resolution ice core data shows that CO2 increase follow warming, not causes it. Historic data going back 300 years shows the price of grain in Europe follows the Sun's 11 year sunspot cycle. Accourding to the Sun, cosmic ray, cloud theory the Earth went through a warming period in the last 30 years and now should be experiencing a cooling trend, and it is, such that even the IPCC has admitted it's cooling, but claims it's caused by a La Nino event. Once again CO2 can't explain this.

Environmentalists hate the idea that all the CO2 being put into the atmosphere has almost no effect on global temperature, and in fact, greatly increases the productivity, drought and pollution tolerance of most plants. Without a human cause to climate change Environmentalists have no means of curtailing development, which means more people living in more places and burning more fossil fuel. The global warming scammers, like Al Gore, hate this new science because it makes their carbon offsets worthless. Renewable energy companies hate this new science because they think it threatens their investments. Bureaucrats hate this new science because they wont have jobs parsing out carbon emission permits. Obama hates this new science because it eliminates a lucrative source of tax revenue with which to fund social programs. Now you know why the junk science of CO2 caused global warming won't be overturned easily by human effort, but nature seems bent on overturning it with and extended cooling trend.

We do need energy independences, and we do need to get off fossil fuels, and we do need to take better care of our environment, but there's no need to ruin our economy to do these things.

Okay guys, here's the deal:... (Below threshold)
jim:

Okay guys, here's the deal: Global Warming is a *trend*. See?

Therefore it's the *average* over years, and the *average* over locations.

Much like a drunk could say "I'm not drunk right now, in the police station. See? I don't have a problem!", it makes no sense to say "See? Temperatures haven't increased that much in this one spot, right here, over the past 60 years! We don't have a problem."

Do you get what I'm saying?

jim,Yes jim. To bad... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

jim,
Yes jim. To bad that what you are saying is wrong. Just like the computer model the predicted changes that haven't occurred. Just like the measurements based on sensors placed next to air conditioners.


So SCSIwuzzy, just so I'm c... (Below threshold)
jim:

So SCSIwuzzy, just so I'm clear: you're saying that there *has not* been a worldwide average of increased temperates?

Please let me know before I continue.

Ahem, preview is my friend;... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ahem, preview is my friend; I meant "a worldwide increase in average temperatures".

Jim, define the scope, and ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jim, define the scope, and define the correct average.

"Okay guys, here's the deal... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Okay guys, here's the deal: Global Warming is a *trend*. See?"

Jim, global warming is not an ordinary man-made trend, see? HAARP is one of the main causes of the climate disasters that are induced from the natural elements, including the holes being punched in the ionosphere. I am not to blame for global warming, any more than the people living in New Orleans were to blame for hurricane Katrina.

Scope = entire temperature ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Scope = entire temperature average for world, including stratosphere.

"Correct averag" (or to be clear, the expected average that we're measuring deviation from) = the average world temperature from, let's say, 1860 - 1930.

Sound good so far?

jmc,The Sun, cosmi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jmc,

The Sun, cosmic ray, cloud theory accounts for the warming period in the last 30 years and now predicts a cooling trend, and it is. The IPCC even agrees we are in a cooling trend, but claims it's caused by a La Nino event.

The Sun, cosmic ray, cloud theory also accounts for the little ice age, medieval and Roman warm periods, but the CO2 forcing theory doesn't. The Sun, cosmic ray, cloud theory also accounts for the increase in CO2 lagging warming events in high resolution ice cores. The fundamental law of "cause and effect" rules out the CO2 forcing theory.

The issue is not that it's warming or cooling as we know the climate changes over time. The issue is what causes it. Science is not stagnate and hundreds of international scientist are now skeptical of the CO2 forcing theory, in part because there's now a better theory.

Mac Lorry, the Sun / cosmic... (Below threshold)
jim:

Mac Lorry, the Sun / cosmic ray / cloud theory does *not* account for it.

If the sun's energy output was behind global warming, the average temperature of the stratosphere should have gotten warmer. If conventional theories about the man-made causes of global warming are correct, the stratosphere should be cooler.

The average temperature of the stratosphere has gotten cooler.

jmc,If th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jmc,

If the sun's energy output was behind global warming, the average temperature of the stratosphere should have gotten warmer.

It's the sun's magnetic activity, not it's energy output that's linked to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are charged particles and the interaction between the sun's magnetic activity (sun spots) and the Earth's magnetic field determines the intensity of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere. That much is easily measured and has been proven. The last part of the linkage is being researched as CERN. Checkout the info on the CERN web site.

The average temperature of the stratosphere has gotten cooler.

Such cooling is not inconsistent with the sun, cosmic ray, cloud theory. Low cloud cover reflects sunlight back into space without heating of the Earth's surface, and thus, there's less inferred escaping into the stratosphere.

We know from historical records that the little ice age occurred during the Maunder Minimum when there was little sun spot activity. Checkout this NASA page for more information.

jim,Sorry, I didn'... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jim,

Sorry, I didn't catch the change from post #19 were I was responding to "jmc".

Should be ...there's less <... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Should be ...there's less infrared escaping...

This late night posting is not going so well.

Everyone makes typos, sallg... (Below threshold)
jim:

Everyone makes typos, sallgood.

But that particular take on non-man-made global warming has also been disproven. Research found that changes in cosmic rays are 100 times too small to have produced the change in climate that we already have.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

So we man-made global warming which *can* make this sort of change, and which no evidence has found is *not* making this sort of change...and we have no other explanation which holds up to scrutiny.

Guys, it really might be that man is causing this global change in climate.

But that particula... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
But that particular take on non-man-made global warming has also been disproven. Research found that changes in cosmic rays are 100 times too small to have produced the change in climate that we already have.

Reading the story you linked to shows that it's just another computer model. You can't disprove something you don't understand with a computer model. All you get is your own ignorance at the speed of light.

Once the experimental results are in from CERN (2011) we'll know if the effect is real or not. BTW, in the face of actual repeatable experimental results showing a significant effect, all the computer models will fold like a house of cards and their promoters will be discredited.

It makes no sense to mess up our economy trying to cap carbon if it's not the cause of climate change. It seems wise to wait and see what the CLOUD experiments tell us before passing ruinous carbon cap laws based on nothing more than simplistic computer models, models that others scientist have shown are incorrect. Models that didn't predict the current cooling trend.

Anyway, here's a good article about energy and what it's going to take to get off fossil fuel.

Jim, I'm curious, as... (Below threshold)

Jim,
I'm curious, as you seem to be very
committed to man made global warming,
what have you done to save the planet?
Have you constructed your solar powered
sod house yet?
And what is your consensus and plans to
save the earth when the sun expires?

Well, first I'm committed t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, first I'm committed to the facts.

Second, I'm committed to driving a relatively fuel-efficient car, and getting a hybrid or an electric when one comes along that doesnt' suck.

Third, I'm committed for pushing for alternative energy sources. I'd invest in some, even, but currently I'm thanking my lucky stars I didn't have any money invested in anything, before this current meltdown...

I'd love a solar-powered sod house, but I'm going to have to wait until I buy some land. Then I'd probably put something more like a Bucky Fuller dome on it, actually...

Jim, I asked you wh... (Below threshold)

Jim,
I asked you what are you doing now?
So you still drive a conventional vehicle, and
live in a conventional residence.
If you're not walking the walk of all the talking you're doing about saving the
planet, how are others to take you serious?
And you did not answer the other part of my
question about saving the planet when old
Sol dies.
Our designation on earth was always to be
good shepherds, which in many cases we have
failed. As to being the earths saviours, I
doubt we'll ever reach such a horizon.
On the cheap you could quit using fossil
fuels for anything including some of the
medicines used for saving lives. Buy a
Hoosan bicycle for transportation, and
turn off your utilities. Grow your own
vegan veggies and quit buying anything
not considered recyclable.
We may all be living that way before too
long, and you can wave goodbye to being
on the internet. as well.

I'm not sure what rules you... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm not sure what rules you're applying to me. But those aren't my rules. I'm advocating for people being in alliance with the facts; and for setting current events on a sensible future course. So that's the walk I'm walking.

Others can take me seriously or not, based on whether or not my facts are correct. I mean, either 2 + 2 = what I think it does, or I'm wrong. Whether or not I live the answer in a way you think I "should", is entirely a separate question.

And if you're seriously asking what I'll do about when Sol's gonna burn out? Here's what I'll do: if I'm still alive by, say, 1000 years from now, that means immortality will be solved. So at that point, if I'm still around, I and other humans (if we can still fit under that label) will start seeding the rest of the universe anyway. If we can live indefinitely, then even a travel of several thousands light-years won't be any kind of a hardship.

And if we still feel attached to good ol' Sol, we can start seeding it with more hydrogen that we gather from the many empty reaches of space. If we're now talking billions of years in the future, then we also have billions of years to solve the problem.

So, first things first.

And this nonsense that we h... (Below threshold)
jim:

And this nonsense that we have to abandon technology to save the earth from climate change, is just that: nonsense.

Our only hope is to use technology to come up with better, more efficient, more powerful sources of energy. Because demand will only continue to increase, as our population increases.

So no, I'm not interested in wearing hair shirts and going back to the frickin' garden. I want gobs and heaps of technology, and the more the better.

Not only can we solve this problem, we will have to - and not only because of global warming. That's only ONE bad part of what we're facing.

Even more dangerous for our civilization is the FACT that we will run out of oil. No matter what we do. And in fact, it appears that we already have started. Which means we will soon be facing a double crunch - our needs will continue to increase while our available resources **decrease**.

So our dependence on oil is not only a global warming cause, it's also a coming production problem **and** a national security problem.

Which is why I find all of this resistance to even admitting that there might be a problem so baffling. I understand it on one level - it's uncomfortable to think about. But whether or not we think about it, it's going to happen **anyway**. And it will hurt more when it does, if we continue to ignore any and all of these issues.

Jim, I'm not applyin... (Below threshold)

Jim,
I'm not applying anything to you, rules or
otherwise. I ask you a series of questions,
which you have half way answered.
So you talk the talk, but you don't
walk the walk.
What was your last name again? Gore?

And I think you gather when Sol goes as other
stars, so will the earth. Leaving it behind
is not saving it.

Jim, You believe in... (Below threshold)

Jim,
You believe in the theory of peak oil?
Where are your sources backing up this allegation and oil causing global warming?

There is no other technology to take the
place of fossil fuels except for nuclear
currently.
And the current administration has
permanently shelved the idea of new nuclear
power plants, along with replacing the
oil infrastructure which is very old.
When we lose the ability of drilling and
refining our oil resources, and become more
dependent on foreign supplies, you might
find yourself indeed wearing a hair shirt.


I believe I have answered e... (Below threshold)
jim:

I believe I have answered every single one of your questions.

If there is a question that I haven't answered, please list it and I'll answer it then.

And yes, the theory of peak oil makes sense to me. So here's a question - why doesn't it make sense to you?

If something is not a renewable a resource, and we keep burning more of it and faster as our civilization expands - doesn't it make sense that it will run out one day?

If you don't think it will run out, then why not?

Jim, You think</i... (Below threshold)

Jim,
You think you've answered every
question.
Where are your sources to back up your
allegations about global warming and peak oil?

Here's some of my sources:<... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's some of my sources:

Global warming:
Bush admin report in 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37232-2004Aug26.html

In one key finding, it describes carbon dioxide as "the largest single forcing agent of climate change."

Bush admin report in 2008, that the Bush admin had to be forced to publicly release, comes out even stronger:

"[M]ost of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations," the report states. "[E]missions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change are the primary sources of this increase."

The full report's here, if you want to read it -

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/NSTC%20Reports/Scientific%20Assessment%20FULL%20Report.pdf

Peak oil:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/hubberts-peak-theory-points-to-dwindling-oil-supply-20804/

Some quotes from a 2005 Army Corps of Engineers study:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13737

"The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are quickly drawing to a close. Domestic natural gas production peaked in 1973. The proved domestic reserve lifetime for natural gas at current consumption rates is about 8.4 yrs. The proved world reserve lifetime for natural gas is about 40 years, but will follow a traditional rise to a peak and then a rapid decline. Domestic oil production peaked in 1970 and continues to decline. Proved domestic reserve lifetime for oil is about 3.4 yrs. World oil production is at or near its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply. Saudi Arabia is considered the bellwether nation for oil production and has not increased production since April 2003. After peak production, supply no longer meets demand, prices and competition increase. World proved reserve lifetime for oil is about 41 years, most of this at a declining availability. Our current throw-away nuclear cycle will consume the world reserve of low-cost uranium in about 20 years. Unless we dramatically change our consumption practices, the Earth's finite resources of petroleum and natural gas will become depleted in this century. Coal supplies may last into the next century depending on technology and consumption trends as it starts to replace oil and natural gas."

A 2007 Pentagon study goes further:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/

Now, please answer *my* question:

Since oil is not renewable, and we keep burning more of it and faster as our civilization expands - doesn't it make sense that it will run out one day?

JimThanks for the li... (Below threshold)

Jim
Thanks for the links.

Jim,Way back in po... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jim,

Way back in post #21 I said: "We do need energy independences, and we do need to get off fossil fuels, and we do need to take better care of our environment, but there's no need to ruin our economy to do these things."

If you read the article I linked in post #35 then you know that American's, on average, use twice as much energy as Europeans. That means we can make huge gains just by saving energy and that's where the high tech comes into play. Like many, I have changed over to compact fluorescent lights and will move to LED lights when that technology gets a bit further along. Same for LED backlit LCD monitors and TVs. Since 2005 I have downsized the vehicles I own and nearly doubled my mileage while reducing the miles I drive. I'm getting into spot heating and cooling rather than whole house heating and cooling. There's lots more I plan on doing to cut back on energy usage.

However, we eventually have to generate power from non-fossil fuel sources. Beside the usual wind and solar sources I support nuclear power, but that just took a major setback with the government abandoning Yucca Mountain. Most bio-fuels are fools errands, and hydroelectric is a developed in the U.S. as it ever will be. So what's the solution? Is it on to nuclear fusion or back to the stone age?

Glad to hear you're taking ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Glad to hear you're taking those steps. I could do more, but my footprint has been pretty light - from 1996 to 2006 I lived without a car, as I lived in Manhattan and San Francisco. Like all good liberals...: )

The problem with switching to Nuclear power, among many, is that same issue with oil - running out.

We are also facing a "peak nuke" problem. Fom the quote above, we will run out of easily reachable Nuclear fuel within a very short span - 20 years.

So that won't work either. What we'll probably have to do is:

- switch to electric cars, and have them powered from the grid
- switch the power going into the grid, probably to coal
- live on coal until we develop enough wind, sea, solar, geothermal and biofuels (probably in that order) to switch from coal.

My hope is that switching cars to electric will decrease overall pollution enough to make up for the damage switching the grid to coal will cause. And with coal reserves, this will buy us enough time to continue until we develop alternatives.

I know coal will not at all help global warming - but we may have to use it anyway. That still means that global warming is a problem - it just means it's a problem we're going to have to deal with.

Jim, There's a majo... (Below threshold)

Jim,
There's a major essential you've forgotten,
or in your ignorance know nothing about.
Lubrication.
And it is a major essential.
Plus we live in a plastic world, meaning a
high portion of our world is based on, wait
for it, OIL.
Another thing, you can't run an electrical
grid without lubrication. And you can't
make a majority of things needed on a
daily basis out of electricity, it is an
energy source only.

Yes Maggie, oil is an impor... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes Maggie, oil is an important lubricant. Most plastics are also based on oil. Some plastics at least can be made with alcohol - but those processes are currently expensive, and most can exacerbate global warming also.

But the fact that we need oil for so many things besides just putting it in our cars, doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we'll run out of it.

And you still haven't answered my question:

Since oil is not renewable, and we keep burning more of it and faster as our civilization expands - doesn't it make sense that it will run out one day?

Jim, Peak Oil is a t... (Below threshold)

Jim,
Peak Oil is a theory, that keeps moving its
goal posts. In the past 5 years huge fields of
oil reserves have been discovered, none of them
in the middle east. A discovery of one of the
largest fields of natural gas was just announced in the United States.
So as to running out of oil, it's still an
uncertainty as to running out.
As to your peak nuclear power,
the technology being developed for nuclear power is much advanced
from the original.
And it seems you enjoy preaching defeatism instead of can do American inventiveness.
We need to learn to enhance technology with
our natural resources as Brasil has done.
The two new oil fields they are now producing
from for refinement will not be used by their
country, it will all be exported as their
fuel base is ethanol made from sugar cane.
We need to be able to allow private enterprise
to do the same in this country.

Well, from your answer, we ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, from your answer, we both seem to realize that oil is running out.

So Maggie, am I to interpret your answer as:

- Yes, oil will run out some day, but that day is so far away that we don't have to worry about it?

Or:

- Yes, oil will run out some day, and we should do something about it before then - but the one thing we shouldn't do is look at wind, sea, solar, geothermic or other forms of energy?

If you're saying the latter - what's so wrong with looking at forms of energy other than burning fuels? I don't understand the resistance to this.

On a closer reading of your... (Below threshold)
jim:

On a closer reading of your previous comment, you actually seem to think we might not run out of oil. We clearly part ways there - which is fine.

But you still seem to think we should look at alternative forms of energy. I guess, just in case we start running out?

So if that's your position, I still don't understand the resistance to exploring non-burning energy in addition to biofuels.

Jim, Quit the goal ... (Below threshold)

Jim,
Quit the goal post moving. You have my
answer. The resources of oil are UNCERTAIN.

As to your pap about using other means of
energy, I have yet to see you post anything
of value as to which ones are most viable
currently.
This is my final post on your questioning.

Goal post moving? Oy vey.</... (Below threshold)
jim:

Goal post moving? Oy vey.

OK, here's my final post on your final post:

1. I find it rather interesting that you couldn't even explain your resistance to researching non-burning energy sources. What's up with that?

2. I hope you're right, and we never have to make the painful switch from oil to other fuels.

Since such well-known Leftists as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Pentagon seem to think we will run out of oil within the foreseeable future, I hope you will at elast consider that it may be a good idea to have a Plan B.

And please note that "We'll figure it out only if Plan A fails", is not a plan.
depp=true

Okay - I posted the above s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Okay - I posted the above statement as it was originally made. That post was deleted. Another post I made on another article was deleted also.

That indicates that someone with admin rights is unable to actually face what I'm saying like a grownup.

That's a shame, but it's all right - what's important is that I know it and that person knows it too. So, to you: if you really think your position can only be defended by deleting or altering opposing statements, it might be time to look at your position, don't you think
depp=true
notiz=Next time you're getting a shovel. Editor

Sure. Send me a shovel, sca... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure. Send me a shovel, scaredy cat who has to vandalize posts.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy