The Bee-pocalypse Was Another Climate Change False Alarm

[Jack Hays]

No where there did it say how much oil is left in the world, just that they have are pumping more then they use - which is a lot and has no factor on how much more oil we havn't already consumed.

What it did show is how much we've consumed, combined with how much we have consumed and how much we will consume, one doesn't even need to look at a study to how much oil to infer there isn't much left. That it's limited.

How Does Oil Form?


It takes millions of years to form oil, we are not replenishing it at rates we are using it.

We have plenty, and will continue to have plenty for a long time.

 

[thenotorious]

Please cite the post where you claim I said greenhouse gases control climate.

You said greenhouse gases were 90's science or something of the sort. Do you not remember?

 

[thenotorious]

We have plenty, and will continue to have plenty for a long time.

You don't give a direct estimate though, because you don't know if you will have plenty. You give a short-sighted answer, to who is to know what is even a very long time. In your imagination fifty years could be, so how is it not beneficial to tap into a resource that is a lot less limited - which i.e. Solar Energy is indisputably more resourceful than oil.

 

[Jack Hays]

No where there did it say how much oil is left in the world, just that they have are pumping more then they use - which is a lot and has no factor on how much more oil we havn't already consumed.

What it did show is how much we've consumed, combined with how much we have consumed and how much we will consume, one doesn't even need to look at a study to how much oil to infer there isn't much left. That it's limited.

How Does Oil Form?


It takes millions of years to form oil, we are not replenishing it at rates we are using it.

". . . The best in the business, the U.S. Geological Survey, previously figured that the booming Bakken shale play in North Dakota only contained 150 million barrels, but experts now report that it could have over 20 billion. Leading researchers at Rice University conclude that the U.S. could have 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to fully meet our current demand for a ridiculous 285 years! The resource base for CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) alone stands at 600 billion barrels. Most Americans don’t know that ~66% of a reservoir’s original oil in-place often remains “stranded” after primary and secondary operations because it’s too difficult or expensive to extract. Deploying the tertiary technique of CO2-EOR, however, where CO2 is injected to thin the viscosity of the hard-to-reach petroleum, 60% and more can be produced. The Natural Resources Defense Council recognizes CO2-EOR as a “win-*win-*win” for energy, economy, and environment (our “three E’s”). Oil sales from CO2-EOR would also greatly improve the economics of emerging carbon capture technologies, critical because coal and natural gas will easily remain the foundation of U.S. electricity supply for decades to come (see EIA projections here). The U.S. CO2-EOR industry has been safely storing CO2 in the ground since the 1970s, now yielding over 300,000 b/d. In fact, the shale revolution itself illustrates how quickly massive opportunities can present themselves in the hydrocarbon production business: “shale” got 184 mentions in EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2013 when it had just 3 in the 2005 edition. Ultimately of course, we can only guess as to what OPEC and other key producers will do, but we know that “DON’T DRILL, BABY, DON’T DRILL” is sure to increase prices. The importance of petroleum is ongoing, as there is nowhere near a significant substitute. Wind and solar technologies are progressing, but they are strictly sources of electricity. Oil fuels just 1% of our electricity but 95% of our huge transportation needs. Although it fluctuates a bit, the price of crude oil generally constitutes ~70% of the price of gasoline. Fortunately, oil may be a finite resource, but especially as our ever-increasing unconventional resource becomes more economical, the total amount remaining is better measured in centuries not decades. . . . "



U.S. Oil Reserves, Resources, and Unlimited Future Supply ...

www.forbes.com/.../u-s-oil-reserves-resources-and-unlimited-futur...


Forbes


Apr 2, 2015 - With only 2% of the world's oil reserves, we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices,” President Obama, 2012 The difference between a ...

 

[Jack Hays]

You said greenhouse gases were 90's science or something of the sort. Do you not remember?

I said greenhouse gas theory was a fine achievement of 19th century science, but like many 19th century science achievements it has been superseded by new science unimaginable in the 19th century.

 

[Jack Hays]

You don't give a direct estimate though, because you don't know if you will have plenty. You give a short-sighted answer, to who is to know what is even a very long time. In your imagination fifty years could be, so how is it not beneficial to tap into a resource that is a lot less limited - which i.e. Solar Energy is indisputably more resourceful than oil.

Please see #54.

 

[Deuce]

Here's another from Nature: Climate change crushes bee populations

When will you true believers realize how stupid the AGW scare is?

Which facts presented here are incorrect?

 

[Threegoofs]

Which facts presented here are incorrect?

The fact it was published in Nature.

It's a well known fact it's just a bunch of librul articles in that rag.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Which facts presented here are incorrect?

It's the tone of the thread. My perception was the AGW followers were implying nobody ever blamed AGW on the bees problem. We have seen time and again, that no matter what happens on this earth, someone tries to tie it to AGW.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact it was published in Nature.

It's a well known fact it's just a bunch of librul articles in that rag.

LOL...

I sure get a great deal of laughs from you two.

 

[longview]

So we know that the Earth is getting warmer.

We know many populations of plants and animals in the Northern Hemisphere are expanding their species ranges North and those ranges are declining in the South.

This study shows that bees ranges are not progressing North, and are thinning in the Southern end of their ranges, thus posing a threat to their populations.

You say that they are only doing this because they get grant money and it's 'speculation'!

So now that a peer reviewed paper has been published showing the likely cause of
colony collapse disorder is a parasite, you will stick with your beliefs.

 

[longview]

Or the good old oil barons who can only dig, pollute, and politic don't have the know how to enter a tech-industry.

Perhaps you should read more history!
Texas Instruments - Low Bandwidth Timeline - Key TI Events
Texas Instruments has been on the cutting edge of the tech industry since the beginning.
The quest for better ways to look for oil, and process and store the data, led to many of the
advancements we casually take for granted today.

 

[Threegoofs]

So now that a peer reviewed paper has been published showing the likely cause of
colony collapse disorder is a parasite, you will stick with your beliefs.

Well, no.

The point of the article is that wild bumblebees are under pressure from multiple sources. Is there a link between the parasite and climate change too?

I don't know, because I'm not an entomologist. But apparently you deniers already know the answer without any expertise at all.

 

[longview]

Well, no.

The point of the article is that wild bumblebees are under pressure from multiple sources. Is there a link between the parasite and climate change too?

I don't know, because I'm not an entomologist. But apparently you deniers already know the answer without any expertise at all.

Well let's just look at a few items about the paper to gauge your interpretation.
PLOS ONE: A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis
We shell start the the title,

A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis

The title sure does not suggest the paper is only about wild bumblebees!
How about the first few lines of the abstract,

Honey bee colonies are subject to numerous pathogens and parasites. Interaction among multiple pathogens and parasites is the proposed cause for Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a syndrome characterized by worker bees abandoning their hive. Here we provide the first documentation that the phorid fly Apocephalus borealis, previously known to parasitize bumble bees, also infects and eventually kills honey bees and may pose an emerging threat to North American apiculture.

Even that does not sound like,

wild bumblebees are under pressure from multiple sources

In fact, it sound like you did not even look at the paper,
but rather read some AGW proponent blogs about it.

 

[jmotivator]

My God...

Scientists blame everything bad on global warming. Now you guys are deflecting facts. Here's a peer reviewed paper:

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science: Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents

You have to admit tha watching the resident alarmist attack their own propaganda is pretty entertaining.

 

[Deuce]

It's the tone of the thread. My perception was the AGW followers were implying nobody ever blamed AGW on the bees problem. We have seen time and again, that no matter what happens on this earth, someone tries to tie it to AGW.

Your perception of "AGW followers" is wrong, as it always is. You inflate anything we do or say into extremes. Maybe you'll learn some day, but I wont hold my breath.

No matter what happens on this earth, someone tries to tie it to the illuminati also. You can find any dumb **** idea somewhere on the internet. But a single, three paragraph guess from one tech article nine years ago does not constitute alarmism. Your problem is that you fell for the headline. "Maybe climate change is killing the bees?" Question mark. Classic clickbait. But instead of rolling your eyes at the obvious attempt to increase advertising revenue, you went and decide this one article represents "AGW followers" as a whole.

I have one piece of advice for you:

A journalist's job isn't to inform you about anything. Their job is to get you to look at advertisements. Anything to make you click the link, open the newspaper, or watch the commercial break. Their job requires them to make things seem more exciting, more scary, or more scandalous than they really are. Real science is boring as **** to, like, 99% of the population. Worse, it's rare for the journalist to have more than a cursory understanding of the science they're reporting on.

So, don't listen to reporters trying to tell you about science. Don't fall for clickbait.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well let's just look at a few items about the paper to gauge your interpretation.
PLOS ONE: A New Threat to Honey Bees, the Parasitic Phorid Fly Apocephalus borealis
We shell start the the title,

The title sure does not suggest the paper is only about wild bumblebees!
How about the first few lines of the abstract,

Even that does not sound like,

In fact, it sound like you did not even look at the paper,
but rather read some AGW proponent blogs about it.

I actually didn't look at the paper. I was referring to the other paper that you or some other denier posted from 2015 in Nature.

That paper clearly outlined how the species ranges of wild bees are compressing, and taken in with the reference above, that means we have multiple pressures on populations. Add in things like increasing monoculture, etc, and it looks like bees, as with many species, are experiencing multiple human induced factors that are disrupting their populations.

 

[longview]

I actually didn't look at the paper. I was referring to the other paper that you or some other denier posted from 2015 in Nature.

That paper clearly outlined how the species ranges of wild bees are compressing, and taken in with the reference above, that means we have multiple pressures on populations. Add in things like increasing monoculture, etc, and it looks like bees, as with many species, are experiencing multiple human induced factors that are disrupting their populations.

Check the history,
Your post #34 was in direct response to my post #30, which I linked to the actual paper cited in the discussion.
This thread started with a link to a WUWT blog article about the paper I cited.
Did you goof again?

 

[MrT]

Oh yeah, thanks,

I guess I had left that one out the fake acid rain scare Forbes Welcome

Yes, the fear-mongering that DDT would oh so so bad things, but the nonuse of this wonder chemical, that cleared up a lot of our malaria and mosquito borne diseases in the US and wherever else it was used, ended up because of your side's fear-mongering, to be banned almost worldwide. The continents of Africa and Asia have specifically borne the brunt of that fatal decision and since its ban the estimates run into the tens of millions dying from malaria DDT Controversy mostly in Africa. Malaria kills almost a million people annually. Countries that could afford to sidestep the ban ,for example Mexico and Ecuador, have malaria death rates that are nearly zero.

The ominous Ozone hole, has presented no real problems and yes, at great expense we cut down on CFCs. The science and fear-mongering regarding that was in no way verified due to our inability to establish a long term trend based on so little time to study the problem, wherein you have to eliminate large natural variations like the 11 year sunspot cycle a nearly impossible task given the shortness of the record. So one really cannot establish the global ozone layer is going through a steadily decreasing trend.

Oh and yeah, the famous Cuyahaga River fire that sparked the environmental movement...guess what, first fire, that we know, of started on the river in guess what year? 1968? 1960? No and no. 1973? No. 1868? Yes.

Fear-mongering is one of the primary skilled trades employed by the leftist, liberals and Democrats in the US.

Ever tire of being on the wrong side of the debate?

No, because I know that I am not on the wrong side of this debate. You dismiss a lot of the environmental concerns and issues that we have previously solved by equating the problems that they fixed as being minor or non-existent. For example, the hole in the ozone was (and still is) specifically linked with increased rates of cancer for individuals living in the southern hemisphere, like Australia and Chile. Your acid rain link is broken and while the malaria problem still exists in part because we have moved away from using a particular type of pesticide, there are a whole host of problems that would continue to have arisen if DDT were as prevalently used now. Oh and finally, the notion that cutting out CFCs cost a great deal is a load of bull****. The fact is that one of the primary reasons that we were so successful at moving away from CFCs is because the industries were able to find a very cost effective substitute rather easily.

 

[Threegoofs]

Check the history,
Your post #34 was in direct response to my post #30, which I linked to the actual paper cited in the discussion.
This thread started with a link to a WUWT blog article about the paper I cited.
Did you goof again?

And your post #30 was in response to my post #29, which was started by post #28 in which LoP posted the article in question.

Apparently, your view wasn't long enough.

 

[thenotorious]

Perhaps you should read more history!
Texas Instruments - Low Bandwidth Timeline - Key TI Events
Texas Instruments has been on the cutting edge of the tech industry since the beginning.
The quest for better ways to look for oil, and process and store the data, led to many of the
advancements we casually take for granted today.

So many notable contributions in the past 20 years. Wish I could make so many acquisitions and have so many anniversaries. Then again, not really. I'd much prefer to make technological contributions that actually benefit society, not destroy just about everything it touches for a few oil barons and their ignorant and uneducated followers and conspiracy theorists to improperly deny without any substantial evidence.

 

[longview]

And your post #30 was in response to my post #29, which was started by post #28 in which LoP posted the article in question.

Apparently, your view wasn't long enough.

Which is why I pointed out the later paper, that I cited, was a more realistic answer to the
observed Colony Collapse Disorder, The main subject of this thread.

 

[longview]

So many notable contributions in the past 20 years. Wish I could make so many acquisitions and have so many anniversaries. Then again, not really. I'd much prefer to make technological contributions that actually benefit society, not destroy just about everything it touches for a few oil barons and their ignorant and uneducated followers and conspiracy theorists to improperly deny without any substantial evidence.

You are free to believe what you wish, but the quest for oil and gas,
has led to many technological advances, that have benefited many other areas of science.
If you only look at the last 20 years, you may not see much,
Oil companies conduct quite a bit of research, but publish very little,
Their research is aimed at improving profits, and patents last 15 years.

 

[Threegoofs]

Which is why I pointed out the later paper, that I cited, was a more realistic answer to the
observed Colony Collapse Disorder, The main subject of this thread.

Which was not really relevant to my point of making fun of LoP for posting a more recent article showing climate change's adverse effect on bees and dismissing it as 'stupid' without apparently understanding it.

 

[longview]

Which was not really relevant to my point of making fun of LoP for posting a more recent article showing climate change's adverse effect on bees and dismissing it as 'stupid' without apparently understanding it.

There were several papers suggestion Colony Collapse Disorder was related to AGW,
but the fact still remains that you responded without even looking at a cited peer reviewed paper,
about the topic of this thread.
A paper I might add, is a much more plausible explanation of Colony Collapse Disorder.