Global Warming

[johnny]

Originally Posted by JAMOOL

I dont understand why this is so ironic

Well, if you have to explain a joke it's not funny anymore... so now it sounds kinda dumb but my funny bone was tickled because the Pope told these people that they should base their belief of what's happening on solid scientific fact and not dogma.... the Pope being the leader of 100 million people who believe in dogma over scientific fact. Also, he's the leader of the Catholic church which imprisoned Galileo for being scientific, as a little humor bonus. I might get extra humor out of it from being Catholic and going through 12 years of Catholic schooling.

[bigloser2448]

Originally Posted by johnny

.... the Pope being the leader of 100 million people who believe in dogma over scientific fact.

That's the more obvious irony. I found the whole "failing to accept responsibilities" thing a little ticklish for me with all the Priest/NAMBLA stuff from recent history. Not funny at all, just ironic. :nod:

[sfustsh]

Originally Posted by Terminal

You got me there if 60 minutes says it's true then it must be.

60 minutes said "the debate is still out" on climate change, actually.

It seemed like a really bias and irresponsible piece, really, but they again, I would expect no less from 60 minutes.

[JAMOOL]

Originally Posted by johnny

Well, if you have to explain a joke it's not funny anymore... so now it sounds kinda dumb but my funny bone was tickled because the Pope told these people that they should base their belief of what's happening on solid scientific fact and not dogma.... the Pope being the leader of 100 million people who believe in dogma over scientific fact. Also, he's the leader of the Catholic church which imprisoned Galileo for being scientific, as a little humor bonus. I might get extra humor out of it from being Catholic and going through 12 years of Catholic schooling.

In general I'd think we should shy away from mixing faith and science. Do you think the Pope still supports what happened to Galileo?? Either way it shouldn't disqualify him from making such statements. You know that to combat this problem would require some huge changes, so unless we're 100% sure what's the point?

[Terminal]

Originally Posted by sfustsh

60 minutes said "the debate is still out" on climate change, actually.

It seemed like a really bias and irresponsible piece, really, but they again, I would expect no less from 60 minutes.

I don't watch 60 Minutes, but I just figured they were on board with the Al Gore movie.

[Randy]

I still haven't been able to add anything meaningful to this thread, but our CEO sent this around today and I thought it was interesting and kinda fit into this whole global warning thing..

[Randy]

Crap, don't think that worked!

[Ugignadl]

I wouldn't agree that there is much faith.

Randy, what is your opinion on the related problem of peak oil? I just watched crude impact and plan on chatting with my mates at work about it tomorrow.

[Randy]

In the 50's when Hubbert first introduced the world to the peak oil model it made perfect sense. Especially since the technology did not exist to accurately determine how how oil there was, let only when we would reach our consumption peak. At the time, it was the best we had.

Now, the model itself is great, but you must understand that it is all speculative because we so many untapped resources of oil nobody knows exactly when we've peaked at the production/consumption point. The Alaskan Slope Reserves and the Oceanic Reserves comes to mind. Now just to be clear I'm thinking on a global scale and not each country specifically. If you use the model to break down each country individually that everything comes more into focus.

Here's the problem I have with the whole peak oil model, the global oil economy, and OPEC:

1. Regardless of if we have reached our peak in oil production/consumption, it doesn't really matter because we as a global economy will continue to use every last drop of oil available

2. When it is mandated by governments that we start to use alternative fuels we will- Not a moment before though. Think about who controls the wealthiest countries in the world..

3. Exxon or (insert big name oil here) and OPEC use this model (which we know is flawed) to drive the prices of the global market. If you track OPEC on a regular basis you will see that are constantly adjusting oil production rates. Ask yourself why they would do that? Oil is already over $90 a barrel. We are paying $3.00+ a gallon. The good question is why?? Of course the answer is because they are in the oil business. What a nice business too, you set the prices and manipulate the demand.

4. There is a common misconception that oil companies want to drill in protected lands because they are trying to relive the market pressure and oil prices. While that sounds good in theory, the real reason is because they need the oil to be in control. If there was an actual shortage, they would lose control of the global business that is big oil.

5. Finally, asking what about peak oil is a what someone thought of to take everyone's mind off of the REAL issues here; a) Why has this gone out of control? b) How is it fixed c) How do we make sure as a society that it doesn't happen again

If you can answer those last questions that others are no longer a concern. In my opinion, we are now in more danger than ever before. 40 years ago Americans worried about nuclear attack. what could happen tomorrow is much more scary. I honestly believe we are only a few steps away from HAVING to invade the Arab nations to protect our national interests. So will say, "haven't we already done that w/ Iraq"? The answer is yes, and we will do it again if needed. Although, I don't think that is our primary motivation for invasion, it certainly didn't hurt anything..

Ok, sorry Ugi you asked about the peak oil model and I ranted about everything else.. I have to go to a meeting, but feel free to poke holes in my thoughts. :)

[SPAM]

Man is the primary cause of global warming. The ice at the polar caps is rapidly melting. Climactic change is rapidly accelerating. It is probable that the earth and man will be extremely adversely affected by global warming within the next 50 years. George Bush disagrees, however.