|
Re: A list of those who do not accept the AGW dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo
Originally Posted by Mahasattva I wrote: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is requirement for all plant life. Higher levels of CO2 have been shown to have great benefits for plant life. Those are facts that have been long established. The move to attempt to establish CO2 as a pollutant has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science.
What does the matter of whether or not CO is a pollutant have to do with it's being a greenhouse gas? More dissembling?
|
The only way that the EPA or other agencies can regulate CO 2 emissions is if it is labeled a pollutant. This has been done by judges and politicians -- not scientists. I have already posted links and graphs that bring into question the claims that CO 2 is a major factor in warming trends. It does not help the alarmists that the warming trend stopped in 1998 and has begun to reverse itself.
Quote:
I wrote: I know what the peak oil theory claims. I also know that they have to change the numbers every few years when production continues to rise or when new reserves are found.
You named the largest oil field in the world. New reserves have been found off the cost of Brazil, Cuba, in Russia.
Brazil: Carioca discovery potentially one of the largest oilfields in the world Exploration and production Petroleum Economist - May 2008 - Latin America - Exploration, Deep water
Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly There Are More Oil Seeps Than All The Tankers On Earth
Several have claimed that Ghawar is about done. Then production keeps going and they have to revise their prediction. They pump water into oil fields because they lack the pressure that would push the oil out. They have found the fields they have gone out of production still have a lot of oil locked into the rocks. By pumping CO2 into those fields they have found that they are able to get more oil out of them. The CO2 binds with the oil and causes it to rise up under pressure.
And yet there has been no decline in world production due to a lack in available oil -- that is what you don't get. The only declines that I know of have been caused by human mismanagement or human maliciousness.
Saudi production does indeed appear to be in decline. Again, unless we can somehow manage to discover a field appr. the size of Ghawar, we are left to hoping that it's decline is slow and graceful, but with the water cut as high as has been reported, that doesn't seem to be likely.
|
Does it? Has it? How has this effected world production? It has not.
Quote:
One other update. Because of the secrecy Saudi Aramco has, about the only way to get information is via word of mouth from friends. A friend told me that Saudi Arabia is only replacing 10% of the oil they pump out of the ground, even today. That doesn't bode well for world oil supplies in the future.
What I ask myself is this.
|
Why would you accept hearsay?  "A friend told me," is not a really good source to base one's assumptions. The mail person of my cousin's hairdresser's garbage man says, it is really dumb to accept second hand or third hand hearsay as evidence. 
tashi deleks,
M
__________________
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake, and they don't Think." -- Eeyore, The House At Pooh Corner
Sit like a mountain,
Breathe like the wind,
Mind like the Sky.
When all the Gods are crazy, who do you pray to?
|