Good news - peak oil theory seems to be untrue

[claig]

'The so-called ?peak oil? theory, which suggests that within the foreseeable future the world will run out of fossil fuels ? coal, oil and gas ? has never looked more absurd.'

'The green lobby, of course, is terrified that, despite the promotion of expensive and heavily subsidised wind power at the heart of the Energy Bill ? a subsidy paid to a considerable extent by poor householders through their bills to wealthy landowners with wind turbines ? the emergence of large supplies of cheap gas will make this policy unsustainable.
Hence the scare stories, lapped up by the BBC in particular, about shale oil and gas extraction causing earthquakes and pollution of the water supply.

Needless to say, there is no substance whatever in these scares.'




What will the think tanks and elite lobbies do now in order to stop the growth and progress of ordinary people?


www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2244822/Thought-running-fossil-fuels-New-technology-means-Britain-U-S-tap-undreamed-reserves-gas-oil.html

[Dromedary]

'Would you be insisting that man made climate change doesn't exist if that wasn't to your advantage?'

I was talking about you, Claig.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just carry on as we are - rich western lifestyle spreading worldwide? Well we can, in the very short term, and then it'll all come crashing down. You'll be there when it happens, Claig (it's already started), and your children will have the full, life-long experience. Bet they'll love you for your contribution.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

"There were probably times in the history of the earth when we had higher levels of Co2 in the atmosphere from volcanic activity. "

Indeed. And what % of the earth's surface was being used for agriculture then?

Was the earth supporting a population of 7 billion?

There was most likely a time when there was no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, and there was life on the planetthen. It doesn't mean it's a situation we should to recreate.

[claig]

PigletJohn, interesting video and Monbiot unearthed the fact that the data was false. It looks like Bellamy believed the data without thoroughly checking it out. 1 - 0 to Monbiot.

But, Bellamy asks Monbiot for some evidence that carbon produces climate change. Monbiot says that there is a staggering amount of evidence, literally tens of thousands of scientific papers etc. etc. - but what is telling is that he doesn't mention a single one of these tens of thousands of papers - no look at the paper by X and Y published in th Z on such and such a date.

Final score : Draw

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Unfortunately, the only way you can prove climate change in an absolute sense, is to take two identical planets, and keep the CO2 level constant on one while raising it on the other one.

We don't have that luxury.

So what you have to decide, is how certain you need to be. And given the consequences of getting it wrong, surely the sensible thing to do is err on the side of caution?

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

In this, it is kind of like evolution. Until we develop the ability to wind back time, it's 'only a theory', and every wacko with a blog wants to have an opinion on why it's wrong.

Oh, on the plus side, the Mail accepts evolution, doesn't it? That's a bit of a bonus.

[PigletJohn]

"Final score : Draw"

Jeez.

The session was set up to discuss Bellamy's claims. Which turned out to be made up, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Having been shown to be a complete arse he chucked in an irrelevant claim that he'd never seen evidence of CO2 implication. In the same way that you might be shown to be wrong about solar power, and chuck in that you've never seen evidence that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The only way you've never seen it is if you've taken care to never look.

[claig]

'Wouldn't it be great if we could just carry on as we are - rich western lifestyle spreading worldwide? Well we can, in the very short term, and then it'll all come crashing down.'

Can't you see that that is the message that teh super wealthy rich elite's lobby groups, think tanks, charitable trusts, foundations and puppets are constantly selling to the people? Without evidence. They told us fossil fuels would run out and we had to cut back. But shale gas has put a major spanner in their works. They are going to need all their spinners to remove that spanner.

They want you to believe that you are causing the destruction of the planet due to your western lifestyle and that it has to end, that the good times are over, that you have to cut back and endure austerity to "save the planet". Low growth and even no growth is what greens want. But it won't affect teh mega rich on their yachts, in their Bentleys, helicopters and private jets. They will grow richer as you get poorer. They will buy jewellery and works of art that cost more than you will earn in a lifetime, and they will tell you to cut back your lighting and your heat and your water usage and they will charge you more and more for life's essentials.

They want you to believe that the party is over and they have parties that will sell it to you - think tanks, lobby groups, charitable trusts and anyone that money can buy.

For you , they say, the party is over, but for them it has just begun.

[MoreBeta]

PigletJohn - at best I think you are being naive about how scientific research gets funded. No funding then no research.

Bottom line is that funding was systematically directed towards academic researchers that supported climate change theory. The sceptics were systematically starved of funds.

That is why the overwhelming output of research groups is now in support of climate change. Academic researchers know there is no funding for research that questions climate change. Only independently funded researchers can afford to question it.

[PigletJohn]

you mean in the same way that there is not much funding for research to prove the world is flat?

[PigletJohn]

George Bush and the Oil trade were very anxious to rubbish Climate Change. You think they were lacking in money and influence?

[claig]

PigletJohn, the oil trade makes adverts about green energy. They aren't against the whole green agenda. They have more money than governments. They can buy as many lobbyists and cabs for hire as they want to. They are not lobbying against it. Their funds dwarf those of the greens and environmentalists, but they don't use them to oppose the elite green agenda.
This is bigger than 'opposing' parties - just like the EU is too. This is an agenda above their heads.

Bush plays bad cop and they then get the progressives to mock him and get people to fall into line because they think they are opposing Bush.

[claig]

'why do they seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery'

Have you been to one of their brewery's lately? I can asuure you that they know how to organise a piss up, especially if the public pays for it!

[claig]

The rich elite don't control everything. They use media to influence the public and change their perceptions. They do not use force, they use influence. But oif course they do pay for lots of puppets and puppet organisations to help influence the people.

[claig]

Have you been to one of their bakeries lately? You might find that they have cooked the books and let the cakes burn, just as Alfred did before them!

[claig]

'Right... '

Glad to see that we are finally in agreement.

[claig]

'Perhaps I should have said 'hmmm'

I would have taken that to mean that you were giving my statement due consideration and pondering further on the issue.

[claig]

'going to explain the evidence for any of your wild theories'

But I have already said that I do not believe in 'anthropogenic' climate catastrophe and its associated 'tipping points'.

[MiniTheMinx]

So what you have to decide, is how certain you need to be. And given the consequences of getting it wrong, surely the sensible thing to do is err on the side of caution? absolutely agree. Whilst I don't think we are going through a cycle of global warming (we have experienced global warming before but we have also been skating in the Thames at other times) we experience constant climatic change. Co2 must exist because plants require this, What level is optimal, is anyone's guess.

Fossil fuels are finite, it is right to look at other ways of meeting our energy requirements, other ways of living and growing food. Agriculture uses vast amounts of oil. Are we going to keep driving cars at the expense of growing food? or are we going to start investing (i know, claig !) in other sustainable energy and ways of feeding the world.

Who pays for research.....claig tells us it is the elites. If these elites pay for research they expect the scientists to tell them what they want to hear. That is due to capitalism and is driven by greed.

"food production is energy intensive. For example, approximately 2 000 litres per year in oil equivalents are required to supply food for each American, which accounts for about 19 per cent of the total energy used in the United States (Pimentel and others 2008)" na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=81

[claig]

Mini, they are building a huge solar farm somewhere near Cambridge. They are taking farm land and sticking lots of solar panels on it. There is osme local opposition, but apparently it seems that localism is not effective any more because councils can't object. A libereal Democrat on TV said that there is already enough food on earth to feed the planet and something to the effect of covering farmland with solar panels is good for our energy needs and doesn't affect our food needs.

The solar farm did look bad on TV. It did seem such a waste to use teh lad for solar panels. What about building homes for people to live in if we don't need it for food? Can't they stick the solar panels on structures out at sea like some of teh windfarms? Why use our land for that?

The reality is that there is enough land and food to feed the planet, but that resources, money and technology are not made available to the poorest people who need them most.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

MoreBeta - honestly? You really think that if there was research with any chance of disproving anthropogenic change, there wouldn't be oil companies and right-wing think tanks galore lining up to fund it?

TBH, they don't need to bother, when a few well-placed media articles can 'disprove' huge swathes of science.
I mean, you must have seen the arguments on threads like this, about glaciers, ice in a gin and tonic, historical maxima and so on. You don't need to disprove anything; you need to provide the general population with a few soundbites and the impression that they know more than these panicky scientists who are only after research funding... and it's game over, boys.

My sister has a PhD in geology, and works for Shell's prospecting department. Now, if she'd gone into climate change research instead, do you think she'd have earned more or less?