naw… really?? Mercy, Gaffa… did you feel the need to expound on something so obvious and simplistic as the supply-demand argument

Absolutely – in the same vein you patronised Larry with inflation.

Ding… incorrect answer. When supply is up, the price per barrel goes down… so the answer is not to “move away” from oil, but to utilize and develop the other sources and locations of oil. *Preferably* not located in our enemies’ backyards.

The era of cheap and relatively easy to get at oil is disappearing. People may debate exactly when the peak of oil was – whether it is yet to come or whether we have passed it – but oil is a finite resource and all indications are that we are talking decades unlike say coal which is apparently centuries. So by all means keep finding new methods to metaphorically scrape the barrel looking for those last scraps of oil but it won’t stop the inevitable. And where you find those new sources oil will itself be more likely to more expensive to extract.

Of course it’s good to have a mix of alternative energies. But fact remains, the cheapest, most stable, and most diverse in ranges of use (i.e. manufacture of plastics, clothes, etc) is *oil*.

Yes maybe today – but let’s start thinking about tomorrow a bit more and start planning for the change over, the infrastructure etc so the cost will be minimised.

And let’s correct something for you. As the oil demand goes down, the price still goes up because OPEC cuts production to maintain a certain level

I didn’t ignore OPEC – it’s a cartel which still fits in with supply and demand model. They control the supply. But even their supply will run dry – so some of those countries are thinking beyond oil.

First: price per barrel and inflation all revolve around the value of the dollar…. which is currently still swirling the toilet bowl before it gets flushed when Obama signs the loan papers from China.

Sure add that factor in the mix doesn’t change the situation of oil. The dollar may fluctuate, the price of oil may fluctuate but with the price of oil – the general trend – taking inflation and currency into account is still going to go noticably up in the next two-three decades. Just look at the rise of China and India. They are having more and more cars requiring more and more oil. You don’t need to be a prophet to see the crunch coming.

Second: Oil supply and being at the mercy of OPEC is curable by honing our own supplies. But we really don’t have a “shortage” of oil. We have a shortage of the ability to refine the oil.

Sure open up Alaska buy some more time and maybe have the Canadians extract more oil in Alberta. Still can’t delay the inevitable. The find in the North Sea was a boost for UK in the late 70s but see how that dwindled.

And I’m not saying stop using oil tomorrow but put a decent plan in place to phase it down at the time phasing up a replacement energy source for our cars etc. Whether that be electric or any other source. Seems fusion is still proving to be too tricky. And when producing electricity I’m not against nuclear power unlike the greens. Sure let’s make more use of renewable energy but I can’t see that be sufficient in the medium term to satisfy western needs. If you use nuclear and renewable energy then you won’t be dependent on the middle East or other such areas.

Gaffa: So as demand goes up and supply goes down – prices will go up – above and beyond inflation.

naw… really?? Mercy, Gaffa… did you feel the need to expound on something so obvious and simplistic as the supply-demand argument, then shoot yourself in the foot with it, compounding it with:

So the smart thing to do would be to move away from such a reliance on oil…whether you believe climate change is happening or not.

Ding… incorrect answer. When supply is up, the price per barrel goes down… so the answer is not to “move away” from oil, but to utilize and develop the other sources and locations of oil. *Preferably* not located in our enemies’ backyards.

Of course it’s good to have a mix of alternative energies. But fact remains, the cheapest, most stable, and most diverse in ranges of use (i.e. manufacture of plastics, clothes, etc) is *oil*. The “move away” from oil is all about money and control…. not the planet, and not the retrievable supply.

And let’s correct something for you. As the oil demand goes down, the price still goes up because OPEC cuts production to maintain a certain level. But there’s two factors you ignore….

First: price per barrel and inflation all revolve around the value of the dollar…. which is currently still swirling the toilet bowl before it gets flushed when Obama signs the loan papers from China.

Second: Oil supply and being at the mercy of OPEC is curable by honing our own supplies. But we really don’t have a “shortage” of oil. We have a shortage of the ability to refine the oil.

Funny you mentioned Trader Joes. That’s THE store I was writing about. Great store, but they are WAY too “imposing” on the green stuff. Yesterday I stopped in a small town in Western Pennsylvania at a Starbucks, and for the first time at a SB’s, noticed a sign indicating that “cup holders” were now by “request” only. Since I had a long drive and didn’t particularly want to scald myself with their overpriced and bitter coffee (hey I needed the caffeine), I requested one. The look could have killed; I had “sinned” greatly.

All said, I do appreciate that you aren’t holding people like me to “judgment.” I predict the “overreaching” will get so over the top, people will start keeping their porch lights on in protest, or something, maybe even “triple bagging.” YIKES!

Show me any “trend line” in any industry that goes down over a 10 year period. Hint… it’s called “inflation” and is applicable over history

Let’s look at inflation adjusted oil prices…

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil_Inflation.gif

So the big spike in the 70s is primarily due to the oil crisis caused by the OPEC cartel pushing up oil prices by having less production.

However in recent years oil price has gone without OPEC putting on a similar squeeze.

http://www.bargaineering.com/images/in_posts/oil-production-vs-oil-prices.gif

So as demand goes up and supply goes down – prices will go up – above and beyond inflation.

http://www.brushtail.com.au/assets/july_04_on/oil_and_gas_2004.jpg

So the smart thing to do would be to move away from such a reliance on oil…whether you believe climate change is happening or not.

Larry W: We’ve already had gasoline at over $4 per gallon. No serious person can deny that it’s likely to be over $5 per gallon within 10 years and will relentlessly trend upwards. Draw a graph of the price of gasoline since 1980. What’s the trend line?

Show me any “trend line” in any industry that goes down over a 10 year period. Hint… it’s called “inflation” and is applicable over history.

duh wuh…

Under Obama and the Dem Congressional spending… ala MASSIVE inflation on the horizon… $5 would be a bargain. And that is part of the plan for “Obama’s America”.

Yet it is totally unnecessary and entirely avoidable.

That price may allow “Mr. GM” to manufacture the cars he wants, and seize complete government control of the energy biz, but the economic repercussions of it all will “come home to roost”.

Got a clue how much revenue the feds lose off reduced use of gasoline, Larry? How do you suggest, when Americans are laid off/unemployed, they pay higher costs overall because of the flow thru costs?

Is Economics 101 optional, as is American History???

‘fused, and glad to be old.

Yo… Old Trooper… I’ll come to Montana and shovel s*#t! Sounds like an honest and delightful lifestyle. Certainly superior to absorbing the daily s*#t of the prozac induced American denizen.

Oh… wait! I’m sure that CRAP is anxious to get off the govt payroll and take up your offer….

We’ve already had gasoline at over $4 per gallon. No serious person can deny that it’s likely to be over $5 per gallon within 10 years and will relentlessly trend upwards. Draw a graph of the price of gasoline since 1980. What’s the trend line?

Much of the world has a large lead over the USA with respect to alternative energy. In order to compete in the coming era of the end of cheap energy, we need to be far sighted; we need to be a leader and not a follower.

I went to Trader Joe’s last week and forgot my cloth bag. They wanted to give me paper bags; I said, no thanks, I can just gather the stuff up in my arms and carry them out to dump in my trunk. So I did.

Why? Because I just like doing stuff like that. But I don’t look down my nose at people who demand double paper bags; everyone has her or his own private sense of virtues.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

If you compare the historical CO2 and historical solar output charts against the historical global temperature charts you’ll see that the solar ouput chart matches the temperature chart (while COS does not).

Can you show me a chart where they match from the mid 70s to today?

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun’s output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

“I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,” he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun’s activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

“If you look carefully at the observations, it’s pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that’s been going on for a couple of decades.

“If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

If you compare the historical CO2 and historical solar output charts against the historical global temperature charts you’ll see that the solar ouput chart matches the temperature chart (while COS does not).

CO2 is trace element in atmosphere and is controlled by vious factors from plantlife, geotheramal, oceans and human input.

I find it amusing that it was global cooling in the 70’s, then global warming and now global climate change…..seems like they are moving the goalposts.

1) Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time?

I believe the Earth has gone through various extremes temperatures in it’s 4 and half billion year history. Over the last 600 million years there have been several extinction events where large numbers of species have gone extinct – some of which climate change played apart. And it was unlikely this was caused by the dinosaurs etc burning fossil fuels;) No doubt an extinction event will happen again naturally sometime in the next 50 million years. However the point is – what is the ideal temperature for humans to live and thrive – and are we contributing to climate change (above and beyond the natural causes)- therefore speeding up the likelihood of such an extinction event to come much earlier or/and have to deal with consequences like more unprectible weather which causes floods, droughts, rising sea and migration issues.

2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We’ve heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false?

Part of the theory is that it causes more unpredictable and extreme weather. That ocean currents etc will shift – so you could have the situation where the earth ON AVERAGE gets warmer but if the gulf-stream is effected and changes course it will make the UK colder. Not sure who has claimed that growing glaciers prove global warming. The events that will prove global warming false – is if over the next decade average global temperatures are noticeably less than those seen in the last 20 years. What events will prove to you that global warming is happening?

3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares.

Of course but you can say that with anything. That neither disapproves or proves global warming. There are plenty of people who hype and give out bs as if they were Chicken Little but there are also people who have their head in the sand and refuse to see any warnings.

btw – I still use carrier bags at supermarkets and I drive a car.

“How To Quickly End An Argument With A Global Warming Zealot”

You mean punching them in the face until they shut up isn’t the way? Bob, you are no fun.

I’m a lot of things, but one thing I’m not is mean spirited. However… I hate to admit I’m now finding some kind of sick joy in using real bags in California grocery stores. When I’m asked if I ‘need’ a bag, as in asking how dare you say yes when mother earth suffers so, I say “Yep, sure do; haven’t mastered juggling yet”, I’m looked at as if I’m buying cigarettes for a 6 year old. While I’ve always been a conscious protector of the earth and natural resources, I not only refuse to be quilted into this sick twisted religion of the green gods, I’m finding I’m almost enjoying becoming the Bill Maher of it.

If it weren’t so over the top, I’d be happy to play nice, but I just can’t anymore. If Cap and Trade becomes law, good by industrial civilization. Economist George Reisman was on top of this years ago, but sadly, common sense wasn’t and still isn’t part of the agenda of the power elites.

Consider the consequences that await the future of America all over an avaricious deceitful, get rich quick scheme that much of America bought hook, line, and sinker.

The environmental movement does not value industrial civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not value human life, which it regards merely as one of earth’s “biota,” of no greater value than any other life form, such as spotted owls or snail darters. To it, the loss of industrial civilization is of no great consequence. It is a boon.[…]

To gauge the consequences, simply imagine such limits having been imposed a generation or two ago. If that had happened, where would the power have come from to produce and operate all of the new and additional products we take for granted that have appeared over these years? Products such as color television sets and commercial jets, computers and cell phones, CDs and DVDs, lasers and MRIs, satellites and space ships? Indeed, the increase in population that has taken place over this period would have sharply reduced the standard of living, because the latter would have been forced to rest on the foundation of the much lower per capita man-made power of an earlier generation. […]

All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.

Shortly before Michael Crichton died last year, during one of his last interviews, he was asked what he felt the greatest threat to mankind/America was. His answer, “Reality.”

CO2 and climate change… the PHYSICS do not work.

First, the theory of Greenhouse Gases.

All energy comes to, and leaves the Earth as Radiation.

Radiation comes from the Sun, in a specific spectrum (including light), and is then either Reflected back to space, absorbed by the Atmosphere, or absorbed by the earth’s surface.

Energy is also Radiated by all matter (called Black Body Radiation) in specific wavelengths dependent primarily on the Temperature of the mass.

Matter also will absorb radiation, but different molecules absorb different frequencies of radiation energy… known as the absorption spectrum. This energy will raise the energy state of the molecule, which it will then either reradiate (as blackbody radiation), or loose energy through conduction.

The theory behind a greenhouse gas is that the Gas will absorb incoming radiation from the sun, and through conduction, heat the rest of the air around it. It will also absorb IR radiation radiated by the Earth itself (black body radiation again), and use conduction to spread it to the rest of the atmosphere.

So, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES, it is, but only up to a point.

CO2 ONLY absorbs IR energy in well known, and clearly defined frequencies, which comprise about 8% of the IR Spectrum. This IR can come from the Sun, the Blackbody radiation of the Earth, or the Blackbody Radiation of the atmosphere itself.

The problem is that ALL of the IR radiation in the Earth’s biosphere, within those frequency ranges IS ALREADY BEING ABSORBED!

http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html

The above chart is a visual representation of the Energy absorption spectrums of the atmosphere, and the %’s of those spectrums being absorbed. If you look at the CO2 absorption frequencies, you will see that they are already at 100% absorption…

or, to put it simply, there is no more energy to absorb, thus there can be no Temperature increase by adding more CO2!

So, in conclusion, is CO2 a Greenhouse Gas? YES! But its already reached its maximum Greenhouse effect, adding more will not do anything.

Therefore, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything except bankrupt us.