Lets see.
You do understand that is one formation. I can just keep citing stuff that you wont read. The oil in that area should produce for the next 90 years.
I read it, it told me the same thing it told you: there's a mean 3.65 million bbls available there. According to the math, based on 3 year old numbers, 3.65 million bbls is 1/180th of what will be required to satisfy America's demand over the next 90 years (assuming constant demand over that time) or, until the end of this century - a standard you invoked. It's not 3.65 million bbls per day, week, month, year, decade, century or even millennium, it's 3.65 million bbls, period, then it's empty, no more, closed for business. I'm sure you understand that, yet...wth?
Just how many more of
these do you think remain undiscovered?
What in the heck does that mean? I am lost as to what you mean by this.
\\"There is a huge difference between being able to do something and being right in doing it.\\"
You said
The idea that we do not have the ability to drill and produce in the US is wrong.
I said, iow, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
Ok so acting based on historical data that says the C02 level in our atmosphere has not caused runaway global warming in the past. Acting based on models that have no correlation with past events is bad science.
Acting based on what historical data? There is no precedent in the historical record for the current levels of CO2, nor the current rate of CO2 increase. A few blips, but nothing sustained. (
chart)
Nuclear power is a good working solution.
As I said, yes, it is a good source of power; however, the byproducts of producing that power are currently unmanageable - hiding them is not a good working solution.
I have spent way way way to much time on this though. I am not going to get you to even read any of the links.
I read them, I just don't happen to
agree with them. The McIntyre article simply points out that someone else arrived at the wrong conclusion because they did something wrong - this is the essence of the scientific process. On the other hand, doing something doesn't invalidate the data upon which the model is created - only the output of that model.
I can keep refuting things, but it will not do any good. I try to provide data to back up my positions.
"Odd man out" opinions are hardly data. Data is data, when you or I look at it, we interpret it and it is no longer what it was. Here's the thing: when
many people look at the same data and independently interpret it the same way, a consensus is reached. Will there be outliers? Of course there will be. To illustrate:
this is data,
this is opinion (actually, an opinion of an opinion). Is his opinion right? Heck if I know, I can barely follow it because it's so full of 'insider' jargon. I get the idea he doesn't like what was done, why? what can be done to remedy the errors? Perhaps you can enlighten me?
At the end of the day, any forecast is an opinion, no matter how the good model. I agree, it's not a good idea to go off half-****ed. But do we really need anything more than charts of global temperature superimposed over global CO2 amounts over the last 400K or so years to make us stop and think "hmmm, this might be bad"?
I can keep citing source after source that will show there is plenty of energy. That runaway global warming hasnt happened in the past, and wont happen in the future.
Again, there is nothing the historical record to support this claim because what is currently happening has never happened before.
Basicly my problem with global warming folk, is they are so egotistical as to say this is the perfect climate for earth. we know whats best. any deviation from what we say is perfect is mans fault.
I speak only for myself. I know that the current climate has brought us to this point, I know that too much deviation in either the warmer or colder direction will greatly effect
our habitat, I also know that if we can prevent exterminating ourselves, we would be well advised to look at what needs to be done.