@STnapse - Correct, we do live in a world of finite resources (well many finite, some not so like solar, wind, wave, and geothermal) but the problem lies in your inexcusable believe that we will run out of fossil fuel by 2050 when that simply isn't the case. Our children, their children, their children, and probably even their children have nought to fear. With have until at least 2150 and that is seven generations (a generation is born every 20 years, give or take). So children born today will have grandkids who will die of old age before we run out of fossil fuel.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't get it going and try and find alternatives. The only one here denying the harm of using fossil fuels is krellin anyway and we all know how much credibility his vote carries when he uses more ad hominem than he does actual argument. We may not run out in 2050 - hell, we may not run out till 2500 - but we know the harm of fossil fuels and we ought to try to better our usage of them if not eliminate it altogether if possible.

We will never eliminate it all together, at least not in our or our childrens' lifetimes. Oil is a lubricant as well as a fuel and the chemical lubricants we have to take it's place are just as harmful to the environment in creating and in disposing when they are done as the oil is. Their only advantage is they don't breakdown as quickly.

No, I agree, we probably won't eliminate it altogether. However, we can eliminate it as a fuel, and even if we are to continue using it, we absolutely need to decrease our usage. We need to conserve land as well, though the issue of oil is more pressing. Oil companies have no interest in doing this; they feel that their actions are justified by the $$$. That leaves it up to the US government, much of which is financially endorsed by these companies, and they aren't going to do shit because they could lose major financial support if they start working against the companies. The same goes for many major companies investing in oil, though it is mostly from the US. That is where I leave it to the UN - or some international compact of some kind - to at the very least restrict oil drilling to the point that it is relatively safe while also relatively profitable.

" I just believe that we live in a world of finite resources with a financial model based on infinite growth. "

THEREFORE...you believe radical, insane assertions with no facts to base your beliefs upon.

You also apparently have no idea what models the world operates on. what industry operates on the assumption of infinite resource? Please explain? Or is this just another wild-ass comment you heard in the left-wing blogosphere for which there is no backing.

The FACTS are the US corporations have massively decreased the energy usage over the past few decades and massively cleaned up their pollution output.

You are so ill-informed it isn't even funny.

ALSO - there are some who believe that the earth is *still* producing new oil resources. since oil is the result of high heat/pressure undergruond, there is no reason to believe new reserves are not being created. In fact, there have been cases where oilmen return to "dry" wells and find...gasp...oil in them.

FACT - it has been demonstrated that you can take, for example, chicken carcasses adn turn them in to oil/bio-fuel. http://www.alternet.org/story/18871/chickens_into_oil <SYN will not read this...>

If MAN can create oil, why must it be assumed that the earth has stopped?

"We need to conserve land.." Haaa ha ha ha!! Why? ARe we running out of land? Get out of the city, boy, and drive across the vast wasteland that is America once you leave the coast line.

As for eliminating oil usage...sigh...boy, get off your ass and do just a *smidgen* of research, and then come back to me and tell me ALL the products that oil is used in. It *can not* be eliminated from use. That is simply retarded and shows such a gross lack of understanding of the world you live in. We *should* of course not waste oil and be efficient -- it makes economic sense to do so - but eliminate it use? WHY is god's name "must" we strive to do that?

Sigh...what the hell is the matter with out education system that our youth are so demented and so vastly uneducated?

Krellin, I work for the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE)
www.steadystate.org

As you can see we've got 9,806 people who have signed our position for the proposal of a steady state economy. People such as Wendell Berry, fellow of the Rockefeller foundation, Herman Daly (Professor of Ecological Economics at the University of Maryland,) Jane Goodall (United Nations Messenger of Peace and Commander of the Order of the British Empire) and Chris Matthews (NBC).

The basis of a steady state economy is the recognition that we live in a finite world that cannot house an economic model of infinite GDP growth. It is not 'left-wing' but rather in order to secure the safety of the free market, regulatory measures are needed to slow growth and eventually achieve sustainable growth less economics.

We have a lot of support from many leading academics, rather than a left-wing blogosphere.

.....and you are still MASSIVELY uninformed. Must be a janitor there.

Calling for a steady state economyu is:
1. Utopian nonsense.
2. Has nothing to do with oil, global warming or any other topic you have addressed...

What a horrible person

And today SYnapse learned a valuable lesson: when it comes to krellin, don't bother trying.

Man up, krellin.

Amen ^

Yes...I am a horrible person because I provide you with links to facts and you ignore them and continue to assert your hysterical beliefs without ever providing links to evidence to support your beliefs. *I* am a horible person for trying to enlighten you to a different scientific viewpoint.

The only horrible people are the ones that support you in your ill-informed demented beliefs. Let's see...you know who backs up your beliefs, SYN? Two high school kids that like to parrot what their teachers say, who ALSO can never provide backing for their beliefs.

A circle jerk of idiots (not an insult...just as accurate description. I would ask you to look up the definition for idiot...but I know you won't. You don't do your own research...you just repeat what your left-wing pals tel you to say...)

Nice, jump right to the age thing. Fact is, krellin, both of us are more mature than you, and we're not mature people by any stretch of the imagination. Please give me one example of me parroting something my teachers say or failing to provide evidence for a claim in an argument with you.

@krellin

"Must be a janitor there."

Wait, what's wrong with being a janitor?

"ABGE...You want to be a Janitor? WHY NOT? Arrognat prick...it's HONEST WORK!!! And NOT EVERYONE can do it....so maybe YOU should do it....bitch?


Oh....ABGE THING HE IS ABOVE DOING MANUAL LABOR LIKE JANITOR WORK....


Fuckign Hypocrite...."--krellin

Krellin, you give us "a different scientific viewpoint" - as in you are doing us a service. Yes? A different viewpoint, i.e we are able to have our own, you know? So yes, we will continue to "assert" our "hysterical beliefs" upon you and you're welcome to take it up the ass or up the nose - I don't give a fuck which.

Abge wins the thread. I doubt krellin will post again.

Sorry to hijack the hijacked thread, but I think this is an interesting visualization to get back to the main topic.

Have someone hold a soccer ball (about 8inches diameter) and someone else hold a tennis ball 23 feet away. That's the earth and the moon. Now hold a microscopic dust particle 25 millionths of an inch in diameter about 16 inches away from the soccer ball. That was our near miss today.

bo-sox -- my different scientific view WAS LINKS TO PUBLICATIONS TO START, you illiterate.

As for teh janitor comment-- not sure what my past post has to do with present discussion. The pont was, so what, he works for some organization. In what capacity? And how does that mean that his insistence on a certain held belief has credibility. *I* provided links to data. He did not. IF he works for a think tank addressing these topics, you would think perhaps he could link to his own stuff!!!! But no...he can't even do that.

abge doesn't win the day. He takes a pot shot at me and misses. Sorry abge...nice try.

KRELLIN wins the thread. I doubt ghug will post again...or bo-sox...or SYn...since NONE of them can support their arguments. Just ONE link....JUST ONE....come on, boys....just one to refute the data I presented earlier. it's easy...

If you didn't get the point krellin, I don't really care.

Phil, that's a pretty stark comparison. 17,500 miles only sounds far if you're thinking from the view of Earth's surface. It really is scary.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But hey, NASA doesn't know what they're talking about.

NASA presents CO2 data in that graph. I never said CO2 does not move. But I provided a link that *demonstrates* that CO2 moves as a LAGGING indicator of temperature chagne.

BO-- go pick up a dictionary...look up the word lagging...because I doubt you know what the word means.

Also - NASA was around 400,000 years ago to take CO2 data. REALLLLY????

So...NASA gets their data for this *from where*? Global Warming advocate organizations...

NASA, by the way, recieves funding from....the Democrat controlled government. Which means their data is questionable. When a research organization is funded by a body with an agenda, it is *amazing* how often (GASP!) that organization happens to come up with the "right" data to keep the funding flowing.

So...nice CO2 data. But it's meaningless. And yes...NASA does get it wrong on occassion. Ask the ghost of the astronauts of the space shuttle Columbia...NASA ignored some data on that one, too.

bo - before your brain fart again...why don't you demonstrate a *shred* of integrity and read the links I posted. I DARE YOU. but...as you have never demonstrated integrity...I trust you won't. BO is afraid of being exposed to other data that may challenge his RELIGIOUS beliefs...

Further....shrinking ice sheets...for example...is a bullshit lie. SOME glaciers on earth are melting. OTHERS ARE GROWING...It is THAT sort os bullshit that exposes that absolute lie of it all. They can't be honest about stuff that is *easily* verifiable. WHY?

"Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " THIS IS A LIE by NASA.

"The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11" Cherry picked data, ignore the *long term* history of recorded weather events and focuses on a *very short* term set of data. Meaningless. The reason we have names for weather events...El Nino, for example, is becuase weather is a cyclical thing, it is tied to a variety of things, including the SUN and SUN SPOTS...You know why they only go back 1950?? Because if you go back further, the data destroys the agenda they are pushing. They have data back 400,000 years for some stuff...but only 60 years for others? And you believe this is *honest* science?

Sucker...

Why don't they go back through 200+ years of recorded weather in the US instead of just 60 years? WHY? Because if they do they find EXTREMES BEFORE industrialization that ruins the agenda.

Pathetic...

Yes...NASA lies.

Here's the next qustion Little Boy Bo...do you think the Military lies?

Because the Military is closely tied to NASA. the military is funded by the same government. So...the military believed invading Iraq was the correct choice....so....Truth? You believe anything that comes from government? or is NASA the *only* honest organization?

Fool...

"'Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world ' THIS IS A LIE by NASA."

http://puu.sh/23f7o

Mendenhall Glacier.. spent three days here, sitting around doing what? Measuring carbon dioxide measurements in ice over 250,000 years. Looks to me like that glacier certainly retreated, just like most of the rest of em.

You know how science fiction suggests a future of freezing people and they don't age? Yeah, ice actually does that. You can see a long time into the past in ice. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post... no reason for me to waste my time on it.

Krellin, I came into this thread to criticize you. I have said nothing about your original argument. However, if you would like links supporting the claim I did make:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=975143#975143 and http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php should suffice.

Krellin you're not a horrible person because of your beliefs but because of your manner of argument. Rather than explain to me my misconceptions of believing the NASA conspirators, you simply chose to call me a left-wing nutjob, radical, insane, averse to facts, an idiot, etc. etc. Personal insults aren't a good way to put your point across.

oh no, not another left-wing nutjob :-)

I don't even know what to say. You favor crazy sources over organizations like NASA and the WHO. You're calling me a radical left-winger for mentioning the fact that governments 'ought' to do something about the environment.

Instead of bashing my ideas, what are your noble solutions for the future? What should we do in order to make the world a better place? Do you have even 1 idea that doesn't involve ignoring the fact that there are any problems?