Spiderman said:
I think I agree with you guys about Gore but I think also the scientists are glad someone who is high-profile is trying to raise the alarm. I mean, "everyone" knows Al Gore, but no one knows a scientist. It's kinda like celebrities lending their name to the cause like Leonardo DiCaprio - it's the name recognition thing.
Well, I'm no climatologist and can't speak for them. I think in general, you're actually right. But sensationalism and alarmism isn't necessarily going to help us.
DarthFerret said:
What evidence? I realize that Oversoul was making a jab at me for the mathematical proof wording, however, I have yet to see an unrepudited evidnence to show that we are having an effect on the climate on a global scale.
And is that because you haven't looked? I mean, seriously. Look at ice core data, for one example.
Yes, I am sure they have, however, so have water wells. Cities have to dig new wells all the time when the old ones go dry. But guess what, in about a decade, the well is replenished. Now, I am not suggesting that dry oil wells replenish that rapidly, however, I am sure that the earth is well on its way of making more oil. As I said, I do not know if we are consuming faster than the replenishing. I do not know what percentage of the earths oil we have even tapped into yet. Not sure anyone can answer that as oil is constantly being discovered in areas that we never figured to look in. (I.e. Minnisota, Idaho, Oregon, Anwar, etc....)
DF, just because both are wells doesn't really mean anything. The comparison is completely ridiculous: water is not chemically destroyed when pulled from wells. The wells may go dry, but the water is still water. It's just in a different place.
I should note for the sake of accuracy that individual water molecules are broken up all the time in biological reactions, such as photosynthesis. But they're also formed in biological reactions like protein synthesis. This is trivial anyway, because the vast majority of the water on the planet isn't bound up in organisms. It's in this thing called the ocean. But oil used to BE organisms.
Just as with water wells, eventually the oil will be replenished. We do not have global watershortages because of overuse, why would we run out of oil. In fact, if I remember right, the prediction about 10 years ago was that we were going to run completely out of oil in 2005 or so. Hmm...wow..I know I just got gas yesterday. There are always people out there that will say anything. So please, back it up with a few facts. I don't need sources, just an idea of something that can be proven (not mathematically).
No, you don't get away with the old, "Someone said this other thing and it turned out to be wrong, so the claim you're talking about could be wrong too." Who said we'd completely run out of oil in 2005? On what basis did they make this claim?
Oh, and the 2005 year makes it sound like these people were really talking about peak oil (2005 or so seems to be a popular choice for peak oil claims, although I'm not sure why) and just misunderstood it as "we are going to completely run out of oil."
DarthFerret said:
I believe that they recorded it. I guess that is what you are asking. I have heard from a couple different places that the temp of the earth was rising a bit (not drastically..but still it is there) in the last couple of hundred years. I am sure someone out there has evidence one way and someone has evidence the other way (that is just the way of things) however, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say that I believe that the earth has been on a warming trend for quite some time....by a marginal amount if measured annually.
Why are you sure someone has evidence one way and someone has evidence the other way? That's not "just the way of things." That's you invoking imaginary evidence.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Pretty sure I read that somewhere...
Energy isn't destroyed when oil is burned. It's dispersed throughout the environment and some of it is captured by us to do work. But the oil doesn't magically reform afterward and guess where the carbon that used to be in that oil went. Go ahead, guess.
However, I can pretty much assure you that my smoking a cigarette will not make it snow in Ecuador.
Of course, but with all the oil and coal being burned, that's a lot more carbon dioxide than just one cigarette. And we now have evidence that it's also a whole lot by global standards.
BigBlue said:
DF, are you stating that man has not had any effect on global climate?
I find that a pretty incredulous statement personally. To me it is polical rhetoric to argue that this is a natural course of events. Yes indeed there is a climate cycle which does not care what man does or does not do... Yes, most of the world of science as we know it is only theory... to state otherwise would be to proclaim ourselves as "God". Do you believe in Gravity? That's a theory - widely accepted, but it's only a theory. You seem to accept the conservation of energy 'theory'. What theories do you believe, and which ones do you choose not to believe?
Pretty much spot-on. But I would argue that the last part is a bit incorrect. Gravity is a force. We can observe its effects. The
theory of gravity is our model for understanding and predicting gravity and is indeed a theory. But it does a pretty good job. And that's why I have a problem with "just a theory." It dismisses the theory as somehow unimportant. But scientifically, it's of the utmost importance.
Energy - as far as the Conservation of Energy & Matter does not equate to Fossil Fuels... Once consumed, the fossil fuel of Gasoline has been forever changed into Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, moisture, and other "stuff". It doesn't cycle back into the earth and become Oil again by some miracle of nature.
Exactly.
Oil may run out some day - if it's truly the byproduct of fossils... But, it could also be a byproduct of magma - that theory has been researched. Either way, it doesn't hurt to research other technologies. This is what the 'NEW' US has to become, a land of technology... we've chosen to export our manufacturing and decided nature's beauty is more important than extracting many of our resources. What does that leave us with? Education, Agriculture, and a Service Industry to provide for our citizens. Sure we have "corporations", but those are mostly geared toward globalization anymore, rather than growing industry within the US.
I may be a bit harsh with this, but I've found nothing to indicate that the scientists who still cling to the abiogenic hypothesis for petroleum are anything more than cranks. I don't want to be hasty about making such a judgment. Maybe someday they'll be vindicated. But I find it hard to reconcile the evidence for biogenic petroleum with their ideas, and the pollution by soil microbes cop-out just doesn't cut it.