A list of those who do not accept the AGW dogma. - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Pogo · #61 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJA62

I don't know... Reading through and checking the info provided... it looks like TSG has got his ass kicked in this thread.

Silly me, I failed to note that Mahasatva posted more links than TSG.

BJA62 · #62 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008

No. It's not the quantity of links provided. I'm saying Mahasatva proved the argument more thoroughly. Very enlightening.

Pogo · #63 (**permalink**) 08-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJA62

No. It's not the quantity of links provided. I'm saying Mahasatva proved the argument more thoroughly. Very enlightening.

Then why don't you forward this thread to all the scientific societies and scientists who presently think that we need to cut CO emissions and no doubt they'll see the error of their ways?

Mahasatva did raise an interesting point or two but I've seen nothing that constitutes proof of his assertions.

Si modo · #64 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Then why don't you forward this thread to all the scientific societies and scientists who presently think that we need to cut CO emissions and no doubt they'll see the error of their ways?

Mahasatva did raise an interesting point or two but I've seen nothing that constitutes proof of his assertions.

I can't think of one scientist let alone a scientific society who thinks any emission of carbon monoxide is a good idea. It's a toxin.

BJA62 · #65 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008

It's just that in a forum of serious debate over issues, you need more than "Yes, it is!" and "No, It isn't!" as proof to back your arguments. In that respect, in this discussion, Mahasatva clearly is far above TSG with supporting facts. I'm not saying, ya know... just saying.

Richard J · #66 (**permalink**) 08-02-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJA62

It's just that in a forum of serious debate over issues, you need more than "Yes, it is!" and "No, It isn't!" as proof to back your arguments. In that respect, in this discussion, Mahasatva clearly is far above TSG with supporting facts. I'm not saying, ya know... just saying.

When it comes to global warming, there is no serious debate. Global warming is a liberal myth borne from a festering hatred of industrialization and capitalism. I know that sounds harsh, but facts are facts. There are no hard scientific facts to substantiate global warming. I have never read any scientific proposal or theory that has been peer reviewed by a credible scientific body. All we have is empiracal data which is completely inconsistent over time. Nor has anyone actually stated a theory which can be tested in the laboratory.

If you go back in history, you see this type of social activism again and again. The earliest that comes to mind is the book, "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. That book and Sinclair's methodology set the standard for yellow journalism used to this day. The tactic socialist activists use is to write a biased account of the organization(s) they want to cripple or subjugate. They follow with wave after wave of propaganda demonizing the industry and the people who run it. Once the political mood is ripe, the anticapitalists propose legislation that limits the ability of the industry or destroys it entirely. Once the legislation is in place, government can use those laws to make the industry in question do their bidding.

The socialist structure in the country is broad and powerful. We all know it prevails in Northeastern society. But what many don't know is how prevalent it is in the American university system, legal system, nor how it is financed. It destroyed Johns-Manville through asbestos litigation. They have crippled the chemical industry with endless litigation for polution. And now they have targeted the oil industry and health care.

Global warming histeria is just the demonization phase of their efforts. The ultimate goal is to establish a cap and trade system where government can control how much these industries produce. Once in place, they can shake the industrial complex down for any favor they need.

If you read the history of Italian Fascism, you will see that is the form of industrial socialism they long for.

RJ

Mahasattva · #67 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

You seem to have no understanding of it at all. It isn't about "running out" of oil, it's about passing the point of peak production, from which point production begins to decline.

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.

Quote:

Please cite the discovery of any oil fields in the last 20 years that are appr. the size of Ghawar. Oh shoot, I'll answer for you. None. So when Ghawar goes offline, and it will in the near future as it's an old field and they've been pumping it full of water to maintain maximum production, which shortens the lifespan considerably, we won't be able to replace that production and the shortfall will be catastrophic.

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.

Quote:

So even though we continue to find some oil here and there, we are nowhere near to making up for the declining production of existing fields. That you think Peak Oil has to be reworked every time some oil is found shows that you don't get it.

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.

tashi deleks,

M

pramjockey · #68 (**permalink**) 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

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.

Not true.

Quote:

"What we discovered is that leaves grown under high CO2 lose their ability to produce jasmonic acid, and that whole defense pathway is shut down," Delucia said. "The leaves are no longer adequately defended."

The higher carbohydrate content of the leaves and the lack of chemical defenses allowed the adult insects to feast and live longer and produce more offspring.

Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World

And of course:

Quote:

For example, crops such as cabbage and broccoli, grown at twice the current level of atmospheric CO2, had 20 percent less nitrogen and protein in their leaves, studies showed. At the biological station's lakeside laboratory in Pellston, Michigan, Western Michigan University biologist David Karowe was among the first to show how rising CO2 levels could have a dramatic ripple effect across the entire food web.

For plants, C[O.sup.2] means bigger, not better - carbon dioxide - Brief Article | E: The Environmental Magazine | Find Articles at BNET

Just one example; we clearly don't know enough yet to say what impact elevated CO2 will have on ecosystems.

Pogo · #69 (**permalink**) 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

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.

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. The Saudis need the money (see Fall of the House of Saud) so why would the Saudis restrict production at a time when the price is rising and setting a new price record? This is a curious thing and makes me suspect that all is not well with Saudi production. Only more time will tell, but if this is the first sign of Saudi decline, then the price of oil is about to scream up to higher levels.

Added June 17,2008: The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 just came out. For two straight years now, the Saudi's oil production has fallen. It is falling at a 4% rate which is about what one sees when countries peak out oil production. While I do beleive that this year they will get a slightly higher production than they had in 2007, it doesn't appear that the Saudi's have the oil they claim. This weekend when the Sauds announced they would add 300,000 to 500,000 bbl/day to their sales, the oil futures market yawned. The prices remained flat. Why? The oil they are bringing onto market is sour and/or heavy and those are a kind of oil that is not wanted.

Ghawar

Mahasattva · #70 (**permalink**) 08-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

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.
Not true.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
ScienceDirect - Soil Biology and Biochemistry : Impact of atmospheric CO2 and plant life forms on soil microbial activities
Positive Effects of Carbon Dioxide for Plant Growth
Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Effects on Cotton Plant Residue Decomposition -- Torbert et al. 59 (5): 1321 -- Soil Science Society of America Journal
The first sentence in the abstract from the link above: "Assessing the impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on the global environment is hampered due to a lack of understanding of global C cycling."
Long-term effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the mechanisms determining plant species abundance
Responses to Elevated Carbon Dioxide in Artificial Tropical Ecosystems -- Körner and Arnone 257 (5077): 1672 -- Science
The last sentence in the abstract from the link above: "This study points at the inadequacy of scaling-up from physiological baselines to ecosystems without accounting for interactions among components, and it emphasizes the urgent need for whole-system experimental approaches in global-change research."
Free-Air CO2 Enrichment of Sorghum: Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics -- Prior et al. 37 (3): 753 -- Journal of Environmental Quality
Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause « Watts Up With That?

Quote:

Just one example; we clearly don't know enough yet to say what impact elevated CO2 will have on ecosystems.

Your articles were interesting and they do add to our data base, but obviously further study is required. I would like to see the above research replicated and verified independently, not just reviewed. You are right, "we clearly don't know enough." I do find it interesting that with the elevated CO2 today we see none of the negative effects alarmists have warned us about.

tashi deleks,

M

Mahasattva · #71 (**permalink**) 08-07-2008

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 CO2 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 CO2 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

Pogo · #72 (**permalink**) 08-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

The only way that the EPA or other agencies can regulate CO2 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 CO2 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.

You sure about that? If that is indeed the case, was it done with no input from qualified scientific authorities? That seems rather unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Does it? Has it? How has this effected world production? It has not.

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.

What was really dumb was to ignore his reference to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008. If you'd gone to the trouble to have a look at it then you'd know that global production did indeed decline in 2007.

Oil production | Statistical Review 2008 | BP

Mahasattva · #73 (**permalink**) 08-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
I wrote:The only way that the EPA or other agencies can regulate CO2 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 CO2 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.

You sure about that? If that is indeed the case, was it done with no input from qualified scientific authorities? That seems rather unlikely.

Yes, I am sure. Input from qualified scientific authorities? To a degree. The fact remains, the arguments were legal and made by lawyers and the judgment was handed down by other lawyers (judges). Not one of those judges has a degree in science. Its like the UN's IPCC, a lot of scientists are involved in the body of the report, but when it comes to writing the summary that is done by government officials and a few token scientists who accept the official dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva
I wrote: Does it? Has it? How has this effected world production? It has not.
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.

What was really dumb was to ignore his reference to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008. If you'd gone to the trouble to have a look at it then you'd know that global production did indeed decline in 2007.

Oil production | Statistical Review 2008 | BP

What is dumb is not placing things into context and not looking behind the numbers. A small 2% decline in world production (The share of global supply from the Africa, Asia and the FSU grew in 2007, meanwhile, Middle East, North America, Latin America and Europe lost share), due to human mismanagement, bad maintenance (Iran, Venezuela, Russia), politics (OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela), environmentalists (America), terrorist attacks (Iraq, some of the African nations), criminal activity (some of the African nations), war, or natural disasters is not evidence of a real loss of oil in the world.

A couple examples:
Iran actually is short of oil - International Herald Tribune
http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/...693ecd67a.aspx

We also see good news from some places we would not expect: Hope arises for Iraqi oil production - USATODAY.com

tashi deleks,

M

kramer · #74 (**permalink**) 08-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

There are many (like Al Gore and some on this forum) who have made the assert that the science for man-made global warming is settled and we should act know. I disagree and there are many others who disagree and I shall proved a list at the end of this post.

Those who do not agree with the Algoreans

, are those who accept global warming but do not believe human activity is the cause, it is a natural cycle or naturally occurring; there are those who believe that there is global warming but believe its effects will be positive rather than negative; and there are those who recognize that there has been a warming trend, but do not believe that this can determine future warming or cooling. I am talking about scientists not lay-persons.

One thing most of these individuals do agree upon is that any kind of policy like Kyoto or a Kyoto II or those recommended by the most recent IPCC would not stop global warming and would be very damaging to the world economies. Accepting policies like carbon caps or other dragonian restrictions to reduce carbon emissions would put a strangle on world economic development and will be strongly resisted by many nations. Both India and China have said that they will not accept any restriction that slow down their own growth. This is probably wise since the current understanding of the effects of these policies are that they will either not do anything to stop warming trends (if they are occurring) or will only delay the predicted warming of 2100 by 5 to 6 years. When we understand that this is at a cost of trillions for either nothing or a delay of 6 years, we must ask ourselves -- Can't our money and time be put to better use? I say yes.

Here's one who isn't a scientist but he does have worthy credentials: He's been a writer at 'The Nation' since 1984.

Quote:

"The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism".

The Nation, June 7, 07

He wrote 4 AGW skeptic articles in 2007 in The Nation. While we can't add him to the scientist skeptic list, we can add him to the apparently growing AGW skeptic camp.

Kramer

Pogo · #75 (**permalink**) 08-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

What is dumb is not placing things into context and not looking behind the numbers. A small 2% decline in world production (The share of global supply from the Africa, Asia and the FSU grew in 2007, meanwhile, Middle East, North America, Latin America and Europe lost share), due to human mismanagement, bad maintenance (Iran, Venezuela, Russia), politics (OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela), environmentalists (America), terrorist attacks (Iraq, some of the African nations), criminal activity (some of the African nations), war, or natural disasters is not evidence of a real loss of oil in the world.

If we weren't at peak production then I would say that these human factors wouldn't register at all, as production would merely shift elsewhere, but we are at the point where that can no longer go on. The Saudis certainly can no longer pick up the global slack, and there is no indication at present that any other nation can, either.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode