• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?

  • Total voters
    115
Chappy said:
“… Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.” — ptif219's article¹​

:roll:
Click to expand...

Breaking news:

Argentine parliament approves "Beef is good for you" bill.

Alaska gives go-ahead to Forestry department's bear s**t clean-up campaign.
 
The majority of the members here seem quite intelligent, probably more so than our Congress..

Some of our Senators....:confused:....I hope they can be replaced at the next elections, but reform must occur, we cannot have the corporations buying elections.
That Surpreme Court decision was a step backward.:(
 
Chappy said:
“… Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.” — ptif219's article¹​

:roll:
Click to expand...
Global warming aside, our nation must pursue the use of coal and oil.
The primary goal must be "energy independence".
 
Navy Pride said:
There are more and more scientists out there every day that might disagree with you.....Just go to google and type in global warming myth and you will see...........
Click to expand...

These things are sponsored by the American oil and car industry to avoid reform.
 
bowerbird said:
Steven Mcintyre - the man in the middle of the CRU mailings - there is mutual hatred there - I would not take anything from there as being trustworthy
Click to expand...

When you cannot disprove what he says with facts and intelligent analysis just resort to character assassination and baseless innuendo; straight out of the alarmist play-book.

Bower, if you can disprove McIntyre's analysis of the HSG I will leave DP forever. Let's see what you got.
 
GW as promoted is a fraud based on a myth. No one, experts or otherwise, have a clue what the future holds as all of the aggressive, short-term predictions attest by their failure to materialize.
 
earthworm said:
Global warming aside, our nation must pursue the use of coal and oil.
The primary goal must be "energy independence".
Click to expand...

I agree with your primary goal, but it ain't gonna happen with oil. We passed peak oil in this country in 1970. The only solution is to get serious about conservation and development of sustainable energy supplies.
 
Catawba said:
I agree with your primary goal, but it ain't gonna happen with oil. We passed peak oil in this country in 1970. The only solution is to get serious about conservation and development of sustainable energy supplies.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting it. What's so important about energy independence? Do you think that there will come a time when other oil producing countries won't want to sell their oil? Or that there might come a time when, for example, the OPEC countries hike up the price of their product and the US oil companies will say, "Hey, that's just toooo much, we are going to sell our gas at a specially low, patriotic price for y'all"? Tell me when that's happened in the past.

It seems to me that "Energy Independence" is an empty slogan that would mean absolutely nothing to the US consumer. If I'm wrong, please tell me, what difference would it make in concrete terms to anyone?
 
Andalublue said:
I'm not getting it. What's so important about energy independence? Do you think that there will come a time when other oil producing countries won't want to sell their oil? Or that there might come a time when, for example, the OPEC countries hike up the price of their product and the US oil companies will say, "Hey, that's just toooo much, we are going to sell our gas at a specially low, patriotic price for y'all"? Tell me when that's happened in the past.

It seems to me that "Energy Independence" is an empty slogan that would mean absolutely nothing to the US consumer. If I'm wrong, please tell me, what difference would it make in concrete terms to anyone?
Click to expand...

It's more of a security issue than an economic issue. Certain oil-rich countries have a nasty tendency to fund terrorism or destabilize their neighbors. And we have a nasty tendency to invade them.
 
Kandahar said:
It's more of a security issue than an economic issue. Certain oil-rich countries have a nasty tendency to fund terrorism or destabilize their neighbors. And we have a nasty tendency to invade them.
Click to expand...

So, am I getting this straight? If and when the US achieves Energy Independence, it will cut it's military spending by half, cease trading arms with the Saudis and return to a Fortress America, isolationist foreign policy? Is that what the EI advocates are expecting?
 
Most American's want energy independence because hopefully it will lower the price for fuel. It's also a national security issue, we won't have to buy oil from foreign nations like the KSA who fund terrorism. It would also mean that America could possible sell oil/natural gas/coal and use the profits to help pay off the national debt. So, more money would stay in the American economy and less would be exported for oil to the hands of shady nations, fuel would be cheaper and there would be greater global competition with the US as an oil supplier, and America would be able to rely on her resources and not be dependent on others. I believe the Saudi's had an oil price hike during some conflict with Israel, they rationed oil to the US and made it expensive because we supported Israel, it's best to not have to trade with nations like this. Energy independence has no downsides, plus it would mean more jobs being created.
 
Kandahar said:
It's more of a security issue than an economic issue. Certain oil-rich countries have a nasty tendency to fund terrorism or destabilize their neighbors. And we have a nasty tendency to invade them.
Click to expand...

We do all of those things and we're not particularly oil-rich. When do you think we're going to stop?
 
digsbe said:
Most American's want energy independence because hopefully it will lower the price for fuel. It's also a national security issue, we won't have to buy oil from foreign nations like the KSA who fund terrorism. It would also mean that America could possible sell oil/natural gas/coal and use the profits to help pay off the national debt. So, more money would stay in the American economy and less would be exported for oil to the hands of shady nations, fuel would be cheaper and there would be greater global competition with the US as an oil supplier, and America would be able to rely on her resources and not be dependent on others. I believe the Saudi's had an oil price hike during some conflict with Israel, they rationed oil to the US and made it expensive because we supported Israel, it's best to not have to trade with nations like this. Energy independence has no downsides, plus it would mean more jobs being created.
Click to expand...

Current estimates are that your reserves will run out in 8 years, the World's in 54.[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves]Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Then what will you do because your dependence on fossil fuels will not have changed, you still won't be investing in alternative fuels, you'll still be driving ridiculous gaz-guzzlers? If you (and frankly the rest of the West, especially Canada and Australia) can't begin to wean yourself off your cheap oil products then arguments about GW issues will be irrelevant anyway. Within 100 years, maximum, there will be no more oil.
 
Andalublue said:
Current estimates are that your reserves will run out in 8 years, the World's in 54.Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Then what will you do because your dependence on fossil fuels will not have changed, you still won't be investing in alternative fuels, you'll still be driving ridiculous gaz-guzzlers? If you (and frankly the rest of the West, especially Canada and Australia) can't begin to wean yourself off your cheap oil products then arguments about GW issues will be irrelevant anyway. Within 100 years, maximum, there will be no more oil.
Click to expand...

And this is part of the problem - there are alternatives like biodiesel but until we up the production by factors of thousands we are just whistling in the wind
 
Andalublue said:
I'm not getting it. What's so important about energy independence?

Do you think that there will come a time when other oil producing countries won't want to sell their oil? Or that there might come a time when, for example, the OPEC countries hike up the price of their product and the US oil companies will say, "Hey, that's just toooo much, we are going to sell our gas at a specially low, patriotic price for y'all"? Tell me when that's happened in the past.

It seems to me that "Energy Independence" is an empty slogan that would mean absolutely nothing to the US consumer. If I'm wrong, please tell me, what difference would it make in concrete terms to anyone?
Click to expand...

From my perspective, energy independence (which entails a transition away from fossil fuels), environmental protection, and a strong economy have a symbiotic relationship.

We passed peak oil in the US in 1970, and there is general consensus that we are approaching peak oil in the world. Already our dependence on foreign oil has required Middle East wars to maintain. And I am morally opposed to our blood for oil program.

Now, if your are talking about how most of the people in this country use the term energy independence, as if we could somehow magically drill our way out of an energy crisis, I agree that is foolhardy and would only worsen GW.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
I agree with your primary goal, but it ain't gonna happen with oil. We passed peak oil in this country in 1970. The only solution is to get serious about conservation and development of sustainable energy supplies.
Click to expand...
Your information is wa-a-ay out of date. See [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation]Bakken Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
bowerbird said:
And this is part of the problem - there are alternatives like biodiesel but until we up the production by factors of thousands we are just whistling in the wind
Click to expand...

Biodiesel simply shows the extent to our ridiculous addiction to fuel goes. It is quite tellingthat in a world where nearly nearly 2 billion people are starving we'd take food and use it to run our cars. No. I think the correct method is to pursue nuclear and nitrogen.
 
Diogenes said:
Your information is wa-a-ay out of date. See Bakken Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

From your source ~

"In 2007, production from Elm Coulee averaged 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) — more than the entire state of Montana a few years earlier."

In 2007, we used 20.1 million barrels per day.
United States Oil - consumption - Economy

Have we produced more oil that we used, therefore disproving Peak oil in the US? Not since 1970

Unrealistic expectations are one thing, reality is another. Peak oil does not mean we ran out of oil, it means we use more than we can produce.

And since this thread is about GW, how would burning more fossil fuels help reduce GW, even if they were available?
 
Hatuey said:
Biodiesel simply shows the extent to our ridiculous addiction to fuel goes. It is quite tellingthat in a world where nearly nearly 2 billion people are starving we'd take food and use it to run our cars. No. I think the correct method is to pursue nuclear and nitrogen.
Click to expand...

Biodiesel does not have to be made with food sources. They have found that growing algae in vertical tubes can provide a much greater source of energy per acre than food sources.

Nuclear may play a role if they can find a way to lower the huge costs, and deal with the wastes. It is also not sustainable as it depends on a finite source of uranium. And then there are security issues. We are at this time threatening Iran for trying to develop nuclear capability.

Nitrogen will not play any kind of significant role because it is not an energy source, it is just a storage medium for energy. It takes another energy source to make nitrogen.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
So, am I getting this straight? If and when the US achieves Energy Independence, it will cut it's military spending by half,
Click to expand...

I doubt it will be that drastic.

Andalublue said:
cease trading arms with the Saudis
Click to expand...

Probably. The House of Saud would no longer be of much use to us if they didn't have oil.

Andalublue said:
and return to a Fortress America, isolationist foreign policy? Is that what the EI advocates are expecting?
Click to expand...

Why must you draw the most extreme conclusion possible?
 
Kandahar said:
I doubt it will be that drastic.



Probably. The House of Saud would no longer be of much use to us if they didn't have oil.



Why must you draw the most extreme conclusion possible?
Click to expand...

I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm asking the question: what would it mean to US society and politics to be energy independent?

I don't get your Saudi comment. US en.ind. has nothing to do with whether the Saudis still have oil or not. As you can see from the link I posted earlier, if you remain dependent on oil, US reserves will run out long before Saudi reserves.

Which raises another question. Can you explain to me how en.ind. could be achieved? Is it just about improved exploitation of remaining reserves of oil, gas and coal? Or is it also about massive investment in alternative energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear? If the latter, then converting motoring habits from gas guzzlers to electric or hydrogen-driven vehicles must also be on the agenda, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom