Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea-level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study ($ub. req'd), "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise," which concludes:
On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.
... these values give a context and starting point for refinements in SLR forecasts on the basis of clearly defined assumptions and offer a more plausible range of estimates than those neglecting the dominant ice dynamics term.
Scientific analysis is finally catching up to scientific observation. In 2001, the IPCC projected that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. The IPCC made the same basic projection again in 2007. Yet both ice sheets already are. As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking "100 years ahead of schedule."
So for over a year now, delayers like Bjørn Lomborg have been able to cling to (a misrepresentation of) the IPCC's lowball SLR estimate. Science's Richard Kerr explained what the IPCC did wrong and what the new study does right:
Warming glaciers raise sea level in two main ways. They add more water as they melt, and they also add water when ice breaks off from glacial flows. The incidence of this latter phenomenon has soared in recent years for some glaciers draining the southern Greenland Ice Sheet, much to the mystification of glaciologists. Unable to model such accelerated ice losses, members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declined to include them in their widely cited projection of up to 60 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100.
Glaciologist W. Tad Pfeffer of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and his colleagues tackled glacier flow anyway. They calculated how fast glaciers would have to flow in order to raise sea level by a given number of meters and then considered whether those flow rates were plausible or even physically possible.
Needless to say, a sea-level rise of one meter by 2100 would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the planet, even if sea levels didn't keep rising several inches a decade for centuries, which they inevitably would. The first meter of SLR would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh [PDF], displacing tens of millions of people, and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent. Globally, it would create more than 100 million environmental refugees and inundate over 13,000 square miles of this country [PDF]. Southern Louisiana and South Florida would inevitably be abandoned, especially in the face of a steadily increasing number of killer super-hurricanes.
These results should come as no surprise to anybody but deniers and delayers. The scientific literature has been moving in this direction for a couple of years now -- too late for the IPCC to consider in its latest assessment. For instance, an important Science article from 2007 [PDF] used empirical data from last century to project that sea levels could be up to 5 feet higher in 2100 and rising 6 inches a decade! Another 2007 study from Nature Geoscience came to the same conclusion. Leading experts in the field have a similar view.
Since delayers like to hide behind the IPCC's 2007 sea-level estimate -- even though they really don't believe most of what the IPCC says or most of the scientific literature on which it bases its conclusion -- you're going to be hearing the IPCC estimate for another several years, until the IPCC does a new report and puts in a more realistic estimate. That said, while the delayers never acknowledge it, even the 2007 IPCC report "was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia," as The New York Times put it.
"Part 2" looks at new paleoclimate research on how fast Greenland could shed ice.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 6:52 am
05 Sep 2008
So that climate change effect, at least, is incontrovertible, and should be attributed.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:09 pm
05 Sep 2008
This will take the urgency out of GHG elimination.
Unless increased storm and drought is a severe enough effect, we are not going to get much poltical will behind climate cure.
Humans will simply say to hell with ecosystems. And go on as usual with coal power.
Are you absolutely sure this is not an underestimation designed to cultivate credibility?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:19 pm
05 Sep 2008
Let's see, well, Hansen knows he'll be dead by 2100 so there's no point in calling his bluff (goes same for rest of IPCC).
BTW, since Greenland is shrinking faster than you expected (doesn't that invalidate your model?) shouldn't the oceans be rising faster than you thought...but right now...I mean, 2008.
Yes, but they're not.
And they won't.
They'll sink.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:42 pm
05 Sep 2008
What will sink?
The oceans?
The iceflows?
That's not even possible, ya realize? Ice floats on water...'specially salt water.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:31 pm
05 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:58 pm
05 Sep 2008
Were the only possible victims the powerless farmers of Bangladesh then rising seas there lot less attention paid to the looming problem.
Remember that insurance companies were among the very first companies to recognize climate change. They looked forward, as they are wont to do, and saw a possible world of hurt to their bottom line.
Will corporate self-interest be enough to force a fix? Possibly not. But it will certainly help.
Corporations tend to hold great sway with US politicians, especially the Republicans.
Corporations with business interests at risk of flooding can help counteract fossil fuel interests.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:09 am
06 Sep 2008
Yet another "hurricane" fizzles on landfall...IKE
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:01 am
06 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:44 am
06 Sep 2008
"seas levels are going to rise.......... and nothing can change that."
Apparently something has changed it. There has been absolutely no sea level rise in the last 3 years. In fact, there has been a slight fall. So if these pseudo scientists are seeing an acceleration of ice sheets falling in the water, where is the water going?
If the water is expanding, due to heating, at any deapth, where is the water going?
Here is a plot of the last three years of sea level measurements:
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/university- ...
And a plot of the last 11 years of the global surface temperature from 3 different sources.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-tem ...
Click on the image to enlarge it.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:02 am
06 Sep 2008
But an avoidance of the worst case scenario wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO.
We seem to have a choice of continuing as we've been doing and making the Earth a very inhospitable place to live or changing our stupid ways and hanging on to some reasonable amounts of the globe to inhabit.
Right now the barrier to change in the US seems to come from fossil fuel interests and some very strange individuals who seem to be more interested in supporting the party line than to looking at the data.
Slowly we're watching many corporations begin to realize that fighting change is not in their financial interests.
As for the FUDers, I suppose they're also the same people who continue to smoke and not wear seat belts. If we're lucky they'll "Darwin" out.
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:06 pm
06 Sep 2008
"We seem to have a choice of continuing as we've been doing and making the Earth a very inhospitable place to live"
I find it a very hospitable place to live. It seems that others do as well, since they seem to live longer and longer.
"Right now the barrier to change in the US seems to come from fossil fuel interests "
That would be me. I'm very interested in having fossil fuels for my SUV, heating my house, flying on business and vacation, etc.. I certainly hope that those wonderful fossil fuel companies keep on providing us with it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:13 pm
06 Sep 2008
But feel the born are on their own.
You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere. In fact you derive actual pleasure from it.
Anything you want to add?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 1:48 pm
06 Sep 2008
Abrupt climate change does have a large number of appearances in geological records. Pushing a car on a clifftop road works just fine until the wheels go over the edge.
Complacency is not a good long-term survival strategy.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:16 pm
06 Sep 2008
A weather event, not a climate event. They have always happend and they always will. Fortunately we now have more wealth and technology to help us minimize the impact of weather events thanks to fossil fuels.
"Abrupt climate change does have a large number of appearances in geological records."
Yes, especially a climate event as small as .8C of temperature rise in 150 years.
"Complacency is not a good long-term survival strategy."
Driving people crazy with low probability disaster scenarios is not a good living strategy. Living within a couple hundred miles of the Yellowstone supervolcano I feel that I have more reason to worry about it killing me that AGW. But I'm not going to loose any sleep over either.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:36 pm
06 Sep 2008
"You cherish the unborn.
But feel the born are on their own."
If by "on their own" you mean that they are not the property of the government, then yes. Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you. And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself. Of course I realize that people like you think in terms of having the government take from someone else and give it to you. And there are certainly politicians like Obama that want to feed you that delusion. But that is not how it works.
"You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere."
No, I love the earth and I love feeding the biosphere, which is exactly what CO2 does. Try to figure out why greenhouses operate with an internal CO2 level of between 600 and 1000 ppm. And try to figure out why the biomass of the earth is actually increasing.
"In fact you derive actual pleasure from it."
Nah, sex, good books, good music, hiking, skiing, sight seeing, entertaining my daughter, do it for me. I'm also a big bike racing fan. I'll be glued to an internet video of stage 8 of the Vuelta tomorrow morning. Let me guess, allowing yourself to have a pompus, superior, sanctimoneous attitude does it for you.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:37 pm
06 Sep 2008
<<
Living within a couple hundred miles of the Yellowstone supervolcano
>>
Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are solidly Red states; we may bank on their voting for McCain/Palin in November.
Montana is a fascinating state, in flakey flux. They elected a good Democratic Senator in 2006; and Obama has visited some of the Indian reservations. It will probably go Red once again in November, but by a very slender margin.
Sarah Palin is of course a notorious wildlife-hater, so we should not be surprised if certain verbose trollish types should support her. Also, Idaho and Wyoming are probably the most wildlife-hating states in the Lower 48.
No coincidence, methinks, that Sarah Palin was born in Idaho, wolf-hatred-central, and went to college there.
Stranger, however, is the recently appearing item, that she was baptized as an infant as a Roman Catholic ... Gewalt!, as we say in Schul; who knew?! For all those hepped-up evangelical types, that sure is a tough bit of Schnitzel to schwallow.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 pm
06 Sep 2008
Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:47 pm
06 Sep 2008
Could you please explain why you believe it is fine to use and exhaust a non-renewable, finite resource like oil? What gives you (or anyone) the right to make this resource unavailable to future generations when there are alternatives that would preserve or at least conserve it? Do you believe depleting a finite resource is indicative of an advanced, intelligent civilization, or is it your position that we can do whatever we want with the Earth's resources... future generations will just have to deal with it?
Remember... I'm not stating my position here... just asking for clarification on yours. What I've read from your posts leads me to believe you don't care about resource depletion. I want to make sure I understand your position.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:05 pm
06 Sep 2008
I suspect you don't really believe this statement of yours... you just said it without thinking about the truth of it:
"Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you. And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself."
Are you not content to give the government money to build the roads and bridges you use, deliver your mail, establish communications and energy infrastructure, protect your food from poisons, and (last but not least) protect your family from hostile forces?
True, there are certainly instances in which the government takes resources from me to do things I might not agree with, but there are likely far more instances in which I willingly give the government a portion of my resources to provide basic necessities for my life. Is that not true for you as well?
From what you said (and again, I'm just replaying your words here), you would prefer to keep your money so that you had the freedom to do these things for yourself. Could you please explain how you would go about this?
Richard
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:05 pm
06 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:19 pm
06 Sep 2008
It's like an earth worshipping heathen ceremony this way, almost the fall equinox after all.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:34 pm
06 Sep 2008
Actually, the vast majority of the planet's population lives in poverty.
Not only that, but compared to what the world was before the industrial revolution, a larger number of people actually die of hunger, despite the advent of industrial agriculture.
Not to mention the estimated 5 million plus people who died last year alone from pollution-related causes.
I'm guessin' that you've never actually been to a third-world country, correct?
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:39 pm
06 Sep 2008
"Idaho, Wyoming and Utah are solidly Red states"
No need to play guessing games. I'm in Colorado.
"Sarah Palin is of course a notorious wildlife-hater"
Got any evidence for that?
"Also, Idaho and Wyoming are probably the most wildlife-hating states in the Lower 48."
Yeah, that's probably why they decided to reintroduce the wolf into their states.
Permalink
saluki Posted 5:04 pm
06 Sep 2008
"Remember, the government has no ability to do something for you without taking something from you. And the more that you want them to do for you the less freedom and resources you will have to do for yourself."
Yes, I said that and I mean that. However, I didn't say that I proposed doing none of it. The point is that it's very easy to get to where what the government takes far outweighs what it provides.
When you look at a forum like this you quickly discover that the inmates believe that any social or personal problem that anyone has is the responsibility of the goverment. And if it's not solved by the government, then the government is at fault, even if the problem was caused by the bad judgement of the individual. These people seem to want to be eternal children, with no responsibility for themselves. When things get to that level, the only way that the government can have enough resources and control to solve those kinds of problems is to take most of your freedom and most of your money. That, of course, is why it is impossible for a communist government to ever be anything other than a tyranny and a police state. Of course there are always unsavory politicians that not only are willing to make such a deal, but they encourage it. They want the power and the money and so they will make the deal and provide you with the security and services that you are asking for, or even the security and services that they told you you must have in order to have "social justice". Social justice is, of course, the new catch phrase for socialism. And socialism is always fascist. It can't help but be. This is why I despise leftists. They are not only selling their own freedom, but mine as well. For me freedom is a higher value than security or the so called "social justice".
Gotta get some sleep now. I'll get to the rest tomorrow.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:20 pm
06 Sep 2008
Frankly it sounds fairly loony to suggest that we have all the oil we need right here, without any imports.
Maybe you have been dwelling on that supervolcanoe explosion about to melt the concrete in your underground "bush bunker" (fall out sheler updated for the ever increasingly dangerous world that the shaved chimp hath wrought) to the exclusion of these sorts of widely, sanely agreed upon facts?
Perhaps there's a gas leak in the reinforced concrete? That could explain your oracle-like judgemental powers regarding life and death, from the pre-natal to the scale of the global climate and ecosystem.
("pompus, superior, and sanctimoneous" enough for you?)
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:45 pm
06 Sep 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reintroduction_of_wolves.
Cf. also the old book by Rick Bass, "The Nine Mile Wolves."
But they do not begin to cover the hostility of local officials, and landowners, and those with interests in hunting.
The "people of Idaho and Wyoming" did not themselves introduce the reintroduction of wolves -- though many of them (a minority, howver) are indeed in favor of it. That was a wise, federally-advised move.
Much more importantly, the silly local prejudices of federal-hating interest groups have been powerful in resurrecting the demonic hatred of ranchers etc. against animals who belong to a natural ecosystem which it is in everyone's interest to sustain.
Up in Alaska, while she has not been busy blasting caribou and moose, and slitting their throats and bellies, gun-slinging Sarah Palin has consistently encouraged drilling for oil in ANWR -- bad news for the Porcupine caribou herd, as well as for the Gwich'in who depend on those caribou.
She has also consistently promoted aerial hunting of wolves in her state, a terrificly cruel way to murder sensitive animals, very much like us in many ways.
It would not surprise me if she is on record as saying that drilling for oil should be carried on in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea: bad news for many marine creatures, including walruses and polar bears, but what does that false Christian care.
We do not need her kind of "energy expertise."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:00 pm
06 Sep 2008
The legitimacy of each viewpoint is subjective, so it is not very constructive to label in negative terms those who see the world fundamentally differently. You are not going to move their opinions, they are not going to change yours, so wherever possible, you just have to look for common ground and seek harmony.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:43 pm
06 Sep 2008
It's too bad you couldn't have come to California this July and watch as all the kings horses and all the kings men, and helicopters, and aircraft and fleets or fire trucks tried to put out our fires.
They got their little victories here and there but when the wind picked up it was run away, run away and when the wind quit entirely the smoke was so thick the aircraft were useless.
Anybody who thinks for a minute that humans are in control is a fool. Sure, we're second or third best at destroy but we stink on ice at 'create.'
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:12 pm
06 Sep 2008
And I know very well that the use of that horribly mysterious word "dominion" in the creation account in Genesis Chapter One has wrought a great deal of conflict amongst interpreters.
Nevertheless, I am NOT a moral relativist.
I.e., difficult situations in life allow of different reactions and different interpretations, often depending on the respective cultural background of the respective moral agent. But that does not mean that any possible reaction, or any possible interpretation, is as valid as any other. What it DOES mean is that time, a lot of time, and a lot of patience, and a lot of work, and a lot of tolerance, are all necessary, meanwhile, until we figure out what is what.
E.g.: Consider what was done regularly and religiously in Mesoamerica, most recently in Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire/tribute system. Lots of cute guys were rounded up from opposing armies; they were treated nicely for a bit; then they were dragged to the top of a pyramid, and horribly disfigured priests would ram an obsidian knife into their chests, and pull out their hearts, and kick the still beautiful, still twitching bodies down the steps of the pyramid.
And later that same day, those fine limbs would be on the menus of the finest restaurants in (the future) Mexico City.
(I do not know if they sexually stimulated their naked victims, strapped belly up on the altar, until they reached the moment of orgasm, and only then, as the victims started to ejaculate, brought down the obsidian knife. But that would not strike me as unexpected. Plus, it would have really turned on their too-long-sexless Spanish captives. Plus, it would have been something which the historian-friars would not have wanted to describe in detail. What were their guardian angels thinking, as they looked on? What was Saint Joseph thinking, patron of a happy death?)
So there you are: Just because some people think it is OK, even people from a great and ancient culture, numbering many hundreds of thousands if not millions, does that mean it is REALLY OK?
There is no such thing as moral relativism.
And, so far as caribou-slaughter goes: Well, when the Gwich'in hunters do it, that is unfortunate, but it is a hugely important part of their cultural tradition, and their real way of sustaining themselves.
When Euro-Americans kill a caribou for food, e.g. as Rick Bass did (or tried to do) when he visited the Gwich'in, that is also unfortunate, but deserving praise for being a better (relatively less cruel) way to bring in a meat supply than by relying on the commercial meat industry, which is unspeakably cruel to captive animals.
When Euro-Americans (or anybody else for that matter) kill a caribou, or any other animal, for a trophy, that is not just unfortunate, but positively despicable.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:21 pm
06 Sep 2008
Energy and environmental positions where it comes to Peak Oil, climate change, habitat destruction, species extermination, the poisoning of the air, water, and soil, are not "opinions" and they're not "subjective". They involve acknowledgement of facts, or the refusal to acknowledge facts, either out of stupidity or willful depravity. Either way, the former position is legitimate, the latter has no legitimacy at all.
"Constructive" or not, I cannot and will not fail to hate greed and aggressive stupidity, those who have destroyed or seek to destroy everything I value, who want to destroy the earth and humanity and want to drag me and my fellow human beings down with them, just so they can make a few wretched bucks. Swine.
There is no "common ground", and there can be no "harmony". What could possibly be the common ground? By "common ground", all the rapers and their apologists mean is, stop resisting, lay back and enjoy it.
As for "dominion over the earth", it's true that this out-of-control drunk-driver rogue species has so far been able to overcome nature's attempts to impose a correction.
But as I said elsewhere, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. So far man has held off the reaction, while the sum of his action becomes ever more monumental.
The potential energy being stored up is astronomical. It can't, and it won't, be long, before that energy is rendered kinetic.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:14 pm
06 Sep 2008
Nobody has to believe in Climate Change to die from the consequences. There is absolutely no doubt that the effects of global warming are killing people. At least no scientific doubt.
Skunks don't believe in cars either and look where that gets them.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:33 pm
06 Sep 2008
Skunks most certainly believe in the existence of cars. They just have no traditional wisdom regarding cars. And they have no prayers which are effective in defending them against cars.
Do skunks have guardian angels? Yes.
Do those guardian angels do the skunks much good? Well, often enough, but not always.
If we run over a skunk on the road, will we meet it again in Heaven when we die? Yes, absolutely, and you will become inseparable pals. And the stink will become positively celestial, even divine.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:01 pm
06 Sep 2008
Once again, I'm not debating you on a given issue. I've not shared my views with you. I'm simply trying to understand your viewpoint and pointing out to you how you continually use your mindset and personal agenda to misstate facts and make statements about others that are simply untrue. This last post of yours demonstrates this repeatedly.
You never answered my statements about the things government does for you that you probably want government to continue doing. You simply bypassed the matter. This indicates you have a hard time admitting to your misstatements, even when presented with clear evidence.
You then go on to say that your real point is that it is possible to take more from the government than what you get back. Saluki... no one here disagrees with this statement. It's certainly not an intelligent point to make.
Next, you refer to me as an "inmate" and then state that I believe all social and personal problems are the responsibility of the government. Can you please point out to me where I said anything even remotely close to this, or is this just one more example of how you judge other people before you've even heard their opinions? You've done this numerous times with me. This is always indicative of a person with a fixed, rigid mindset. Remember Saluki... I'm simply playing back your own words. I'm not making anything up here. These are your statements... not mine.
You then continue with a long rant about what I and others here believe, which is in fact just your fantasies and judgments about who I am... none of it, of course, being evenly closely reflective of my beliefs. Some of what you say may reflect some of the opinions of some people here, but so what?
The point is, Saluki, you can't lump everyone with a different view than yours into a box. It's more complex than this. It's quite possible some of my views reflect thoughts you've never even considered... unless you believe that your thoughts are already as evolved as they'll ever get. Tell me... is that statement correct? Are you certain your views right now reflect your highest potential as a human being?
I can tell you this for certain. Based on all the misstatements, judgments and lies you've made about me in our brief correspondence, you have a great deal of personal growth ahead of you. While this is taking place, you might want to consider asking people what they believe before you pass judgment on them. But then again, it's probably far more comfortable for you to continue living within your illusions and stories about "the rest of us."
Richard
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:38 pm
06 Sep 2008
a. Polygamy. In the Islamic tradition, it's morally correct. In our current Christian tradition, it's morally incorrect. Is there only one correct answer here? And who's answer is it?
b. Homosexuality. In the Islamic tradition a major taboo.In modern western civilization now largely (though certainly not completely) accepted. So who's interpretation is correct?
It's totally arbitrary which way you go on questions like this unless you apply an over-arching principle, which you have to accept others will not apply.
As for how this applies to political life in the US, you can howl about those things which you consider abhorrent (hunting wolves from aircraft is not for trophies - it's to keep the population in check since they are predators and eat things we don't want them eating) but in a pluralistic democracy you have to accept the outcome of the majority. If you attack the majority vociferously, you will be ignored.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:45 pm
06 Sep 2008
If the latter has the support among a majority of the population, it is dejure legitimate.
'"Constructive" or not, I cannot and will not fail to hate greed and aggressive stupidity, those who have destroyed or seek to destroy everything I value, who want to destroy the earth and humanity and want to drag me and my fellow human beings down with them, just so they can make a few wretched bucks. Swine."
For every action there is a reaction. When you hate them, they hate you right back. And they stop listening to you. If you want to influence them, the language of hate will do it, but not to the outcome you desire.
"There is no "common ground", and there can be no "harmony". What could possibly be the common ground? By "common ground", all the rapers and their apologists mean is, stop resisting, lay back and enjoy it."
You highlight the facts, persuasion based on same. But first you have to acknowledge that YOUR viewpoints on how to deal with the facts might be wrong. In fact, Russ, yours ARE wrong. It's not even debatable. You and Wolverine hold opinions absolutely in the tiniest of minority on the planet. They are not legitimate. Of course you can't find common ground, but you are a deconstructionist. Nobody is going to pay any attention to radical viewpoints such as yours.
"The potential energy being stored up is astronomical. It can't, and it won't, be long, before that energy is rendered kinetic."
It won't happen in your lifetime. But what I find humorous is that you want it to happen - but decry those who are pursing policies that might lead to that end. Hasn't the inconsistency ever occurred to you. You should be working for Exxon - Mobil to help hasten the outcome you desire.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:48 am
07 Sep 2008
You and Wolverine hold opinions absolutely in the tiniest of minority on the planet.
This kind of flat-earth, quantity-over-quality bean-counting is beneath contempt.
Throughout history the majority has almost always been wrong about every real issue.
It's the creative and intellectual elite who have always borne the torch of insight and vision, with the hominid masses lagging hundreds, often thousands of years behind.
BTW, I think you meant "de facto". "De jure" means formal, official.
When you hate them, they hate you right back.
Believe me, I was the victim of their hate for many long hard years before I started hating them back. But now I'm counterattacking.
But what I find humorous is that you want it to happen - but decry those who are pursing policies that might lead to that end. Hasn't the inconsistency ever occurred to you. You should be working for Exxon - Mobil to help hasten the outcome you desire.
This is the last time I'm going to say this to you, since obviously you don't pay attention.
"Wanting" it to happen or not is irrelevant - it is going to happen regardless.
So there are two choices - orderly retreat or absolute rout.
Exxon's way is the dead-ender, scorched earth way of the bunker - business as usual until complete collapse.
This is not what I "want".
What I want is an organized transformation and simplification while there's still time (if there is still time).
Of course the greed fundamentalists "won't listen to me" as you say. It has nothing to do with my hating them, and everything to do with the fact that my way, they wouldn't be able to plunder the earth and society any longer.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:28 am
07 Sep 2008
70% believed there were WMDs in Iraq and mushroom clouds were looming, and Saddam was behind 9/11.
"Drill, drill, drill, baby, drill", that slogan will clear everything up. They believe it and may even vote based on that.
It's all relative say the realists. Facts, morality, reality itself. If your neighbors believe it, it must be right and true?
As the neocons told Woodward, "We make history".
But isn't this in fact the worst kind of big lie? The tactic of mass delusion that got us into this current mess we are in.
Palin is a human bumpersticker. You can't interview a bumpersticker or question a slogan. Another fine mess they are getting us into.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:28 am
07 Sep 2008
So you are right, everyone else is wrong, other opinions don't matter. Got it.
"Throughout history the majority has almost always been wrong about every real issue."
Like you are on this one?
"It's the creative and intellectual elite who have always borne the torch of insight and vision, with the hominid masses lagging hundreds, often thousands of years behind."
Don't flatter yourself. Those same "elites" have also been responsible for all kinds of heinous B.S.
"BTW, I think you meant "de facto". "De jure" means formal, official."
No, I meant de jure - in accordance with law. That's the result of this funky things called elections. You're not smarter than me, so don't try and get pedantic and make yourself look that way.
"Believe me, I was the victim of their hate for many long hard years before I started hating them back. But now I'm counterattacking."
And like Don Quixote, you are losing.
"So there are two choices - orderly retreat or absolute rout."
Orderly retreat is not an option. A simpleton can figure that out. There is no orderly way, short of bringing Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichman out of the grave and putting them to work on the problem, to cut the planets population by two thirds. Furthermore, the kind of centralized power that would have to be given to a world governing body would definitely be abused by those who controlled it. What the purpose, that would not be the ends result.
Of course, you are wrong, the collapse is not going to happen. There will be pain and reduction, but not collapse. The industrial era is not going to go backwards, but rather evolve. 500 years from now, people will not be riding horseback.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:37 am
07 Sep 2008
"Actually, the vast majority of the planet's population lives in poverty."
That's changing the subject, but okay let's go there. First, however, you have made a whole shitload of assertions without evidence. Like the one above and:
"compared to what the world was before the industrial revolution, a larger number of people actually die of hunger, despite the advent of industrial agriculture."
and:
"Not to mention the estimated 5 million plus people who died last year alone from pollution-related causes."
Frankly, I don't buy any of them.
But, let's go look at some of the worst of that poverty. Here is a satellite image of North Korea and South Korea.
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/218-koreas-da ...
Poverty, hunger, and a complete lack of freedom are the norm in North Korea. South Korea has a booming economy, a huge middle class, and compared to North Korea, infinitely more freedom.
South Korea is the product of capitalism and free enterprise. They have huge international corporations. They consume large amounts of natural resources. They burn large amounts of fossil fuels.
North Korea is the product of left wing ideaology where socialism has been taken to it's natural conclusion. They don't consume much in the way of any kind of natural resources. They have a tiny carbon footprint. They don't have any of the big oil companies or other international corporations that the left so loves to hate. Their population is miserable, impoverished, and hungry. But by your definition they must be in Nirvana because they have socialized medicine and they are not being exploited by the greedy capitalists.
That's one of the reasons that I'm certain all of you people are complete nut cases.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:40 am
07 Sep 2008
That was...PURE GENIUS!!
If ya don't mind, I think I might use that as a sig. ;)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:09 am
07 Sep 2008
Or... North Korea.
I think maybe we could strike a happy medium, where real competitive free market capitalism exists alongside reasonable regulation and a social safety net.
Obama is the candidate for that plan.
Palin/McCain is the ticket for unregulated, unlimited corporatism. Destroy Bristol Bay with toxic mine tailings? The source of one third of our seafood? Palin's recent pet project.
Or allow safe environmentally friendly mining, and fishing to coexist?
That's the choice. Put all those small family fishing businesses, which Palin at one time depended on for her family's living, right out of business. So a huge mining corporation can save 5% on costs by dumping toxic tailings into the bay, instead of safely returning them to where they came from.
Palin is the perfect example of people who vote agaionst their own interests. A party that tramples others down so the few can love in excess.
Obama and Biden worked their way up, not selling out, not to a life of excess. But to a life of service. "Service"..the signs waved at the GOP convention said it.
Vote for the happy medium, good old fashioned Teddy Roosevelt style capitalism. Reasonable regulation to maintain free markets and a fair chance for small businesses and large..who play fairly, do what is right, and act responsibly..
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:43 am
07 Sep 2008
"You see, the EIA (presided over by your favorite president's administration) and virtually every authority on oil reserves, claim all the "drill, drill, drill, baby, drilling" that anyone cares to do here in the US might take 3 cents per gallon off the price of gas, maybe 10 years from now."
That's positively the most idiotic thing that I have ever heard. First of all, Bush didn't go through and fire people from previous administrations in most of the government departments. Most of these people are lifelong government employees. They were probably there long before Bush was elected. They do what they want with no regard for the president. So your first point is crap.
Now, the idea that the EIA has a clue about what oil prices will be in the future and how added supply will effect oil prices is also crap. If you think that the EIA has any credibility in that area, then show me a report of theirs from 10 years ago that shows us reaching $140 per barrel in 2008. I doubt that they would even have been in the ball park. But you are ignorant enough to think that they can do estimates to 3 cents.
Any economist will tell you that prices are effected by both supply and demand and by expectations of future supply and demand. If you produce slightly more than what is consumed, it has an amplified negative effect on prices. If you produce slightly less that what is consumed the competition to get what is needed goes up greatly driving prices up greatly. In the market, the expectation of what that balance will be in the future also drives prices. Now you don't have to be very bright to see that China is growing at a rate that will cause them to increase their oil demands in huge increments, and that India will not be far behind them. The current middle east oil fields simply cannot keep up. Some of the biggest fields in Saudi Arabia are having water pumped into them in order to get the oil out. There is another issue, by the way. The Saudis are very secretive about their reserves and their production. So how does the EIA deal with that missing data? Canadian sand oil is helping the situation, but it's not enough. The EIA also bases it's estimates on current technology which is never realistic.
And of course you and the EIA are completely overlooking the 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil that we have in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. More oil than they have in all of the middle east and enough oil to power the US for the next 200 years. That blatant oversight is a good indication that the EIA has it's own share of eco cultists.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:48 am
07 Sep 2008
"Maybe you have been dwelling on that supervolcanoe explosion about to melt the concrete in your underground "bush bunker""
Maybe you need a course in reading comprehension. As I said before your comment, I never loose a minute of sleep over it.
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:53 am
07 Sep 2008
No, I meant de jure - in accordance with law. That's the result of this funky things called elections.
So you're a slave to "law" and "elections". Like the two which gave us George Bush, at least one of which was definitely stolen, the theft legitimized by the Supreme court in direct defiance of the law. Got it.
I, of course, am talking about what's morally right, and what's intellectually right, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the "law", and which hardly ever have anything to do with elections.
That the likes of Bush could get enough votes to be close enough to steal an election right there refutes any idiot notion that "elections" as practiced in America have any validity.
I certainly don't recognize Bush supporters as fellow citizens. They're not part of my America.
And like Don Quixote, you are losing.
The dwindling amount of oil in the ground and the ever-thinner balloon of your exponential debt bubble are contradicting you.
As for Don Quixote, thank you for the compliment, though I'm partial to Hamlet myself.
I'd rather "lose" like one of those attempters, which means winning the greater victory, than "win" like the sort of bloodsucker you must idolize - Gordon Gekko or Mr. Potter or some such.
Orderly retreat is not an option. A simpleton can figure that out. There is no orderly way, short of bringing Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichman out of the grave and putting them to work on the problem, to cut the planets population by two thirds. Furthermore, the kind of centralized power that would have to be given to a world governing body would definitely be abused by those who controlled it. What the purpose, that would not be the ends result.
Wow - so you think rout is the only possible outcome. You're more pessimistic than I.
"Centralized power"? Um, you're the one who's always raving about how things are just going to get bigger and more concentrated and more centralized. You're the size-worshipper.
I've made it clear I believe the contrary, that only decentralization and simplification can bring civilization through the fire in one (smaller and distributed) piece.
And since you brought up nazis, I don't think we'll need Heydrich as long as the Republicans are around. Just look at those drooling, blood-lusting thugs chanting "Burn baby burn" in St. Paul.
You're not smarter than me, so don't try and get pedantic and make yourself look that way.
If presenting evidence for my views and prognosis is "pedantic", so be it. I know you don't like evidence, since it's always against you. Otherwise for once you might give some of your own, regarding how exponential growth in energy, money, debt, production, and population is going to continue.
Since you claim you're as smart as I, you must be aware that once this growth stops, or even slows down, the whole thing comes crashing down.
I'll put it in military terms for you - once that fighter jet slows down, its engine is going to stall out, and down it goes.
So how do you think this ever-increasing speed is going to be maintained? EVIDENCE.
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:08 am
07 Sep 2008
"You then continue with a long rant about what I and others here believe, which is in fact just your fantasies and judgments about who I am... none of it, of course, being evenly closely reflective of my beliefs."
Here is a news flash for you Richard. It's not about you. You are not the center of the world. You are not what I am trying to understand. My references are directed at the left wing mentality in general. There is a common thread in that mentality. While there may be some variations at the fringes, the core is fairly identifiable. For example, you can bet money that every eco freak is going to bash the conservative candidate, regardless of who they are, and they are going to do it with brain dead, out of context assertions like "Palin is an animal hater". They are going to swallow the AGW hoax hook line and sinker and they are going to use the authority argument (all scientists agree) to support their position without ever trying to take a skeptical look at the evidence. And of course many of them will claim that any disagreement is some kind of conspiracy by the oil companies to spread doubt. They are going to look for excuses not to drill because they want to force the country to their solution, regadless of how impractical their solution might be and regardless of how it damages the wealth of the nation and the lifestyle that it's citizens want lead. I could go on and on about the areas of commonality. Now you may think that those points are baseless, but I see all of them made again and again in different threads all over this site.
If you think that you don't fall into those categories and that you are being treated unfairly, then fine, tell me what you do believe. I'm listening.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:07 am
07 Sep 2008
"So you're a slave to "law" and "elections". Like the two which gave us George Bush, at least one of which was definitely stolen, the theft legitimized by the Supreme court in direct defiance of the law. Got it."
You have to take the good with the bad. If you know of a perfect system, please, I'm all ears.
"I, of course, am talking about what's morally right, and what's intellectually right, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with the "law", and which hardly ever have anything to do with elections.
That the likes of Bush could get enough votes to be close enough to steal an election right there refutes any idiot notion that "elections" as practiced in America have any validity."
Of course they are valid. The problem is you are contemptuous of the average person. Another Heydrich in the making.
"I certainly don't recognize Bush supporters as fellow citizens. They're not part of my America."
You don't get to pick and choose who is and is not a citizen of "your America". What you do exhibit is an incredibly obtuse arrogance. But there isn't an ounce of common sense in any of this crap.
"I've made it clear I believe the contrary, that only decentralization and simplification can bring civilization through the fire in one (smaller and distributed) piece."
And how would you get there from here??? Do you know ANYTHING about international politics and how nation states behave? Any state trying to "get smaller" would be consumed, if not militarily then by political and economic dominance. How could the US deconstruct? It is not in the realm of the possible.
"And since you brought up nazis, I don't think we'll need Heydrich as long as the Republicans are around. Just look at those drooling, blood-lusting thugs chanting "Burn baby burn" in St. Paul."
It's a ridiculous statement. The Republican party does not have a corner on warfare - never did.
"If presenting evidence for my views and prognosis is "pedantic", so be it."
No, trying to correct my use of de jure vice de facto was you knucklehead.
"So how do you think this ever-increasing speed is going to be maintained? EVIDENCE."
I don't need to provide you with evidence. There's plenty of that right here on Grist, which you enjoy disregarding because you WANT the fighter to go down. There are plenty of other sources of power, and technology continues to advance at a very rapid pace. In my view there is no question that the number of people on the planet is straining it's capacity to support them. Mass hunger is going to reduce that to some degree. Unfortunately unavoidable. But it's not going to come completely apart, and in some places life will be better than ever. Some states will thrive in the coming millenium.
"Since you claim you're as smart as I, you must be aware that once this growth stops, or even slows down, the whole thing comes crashing down."
Nope. Even during the Great Depression the whole thing didn't come apart. It does put great strains on socio-economic systems. But all did not fall apart. Even in North Korea, which is a total basket case, the whole thing hasn't come apart.
Again, it is not possible to de-consruct. The ONLY solution to our current problems are to transition to other energy sources. There is no other answer. The idea that globally there will suddenly be a mass transition to small government, that birth control will reduce the population by more than half, and that nation states will somehow be vastly reduced and stop behaving as nation states is absurd.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:28 am
07 Sep 2008
Shale oil operations are farming the govenment with some trucks driving around to look busy.
Oil Shale makes for good roofing in northern climes but is otherwise a waste. You might as well claim the petroleum fairy is going to fill your hummer at night if you leave a bottle of Jack Daniels on the dash.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:46 am
07 Sep 2008
The big lie technique uses lots of little lies as a back drop.
Scientific concensus does not constitute an appeal to authority. It is based on testable theory and data. Unless you are a climate or energy expert your counter-arguments too depend on this same source.
Or they ought to. In this case they appear to be an appeal to unknown, unamed authority. As usual, mysterious authority figues, too numerous to mention who all agree GHG climate change is a hoax and that there is no shortage of oil to power the US economy right here at home.
We are feeding you the facts and you are fattening up your trollish position with every talking point we have faced down time and time again here over the last few years.
Let the voters decide. Talking point, sloganeering, bumpersticker anti-reasoning leadership, or leadership based on facts. We have seen how big lie sloganeering has worked these last 8 years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:56 am
07 Sep 2008
True energy independence would mean no oil used for anything but chemical feedstocks, train fuel and bunker fuel for shipping and perhaps a bit for the military.
Since nobody is proposing that it's fair to assume that they're lying. It's also pretty fair to assume that their supporters are lying also.
What drilling will do is destroy ecosystems and kill endangered species. Which God created if you are religious or evolved if you're not. Either way we can't replace what's destroyed once gone.
When did conservative come to mean destroyer? Where's the morality in destroying creation?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:14 am
07 Sep 2008
"I think maybe we could strike a happy medium, where real competitive free market capitalism exists alongside reasonable regulation and a social safety net."
That would be nice, and that is the objective that Sarah Palin has stated many time. Unfortunately, for the left and the eco cultists there is no such place as too far left and there is no amount of environmental regulation, short of shutting down all industry, that is enough. And of course the left is not really interested in social saftey nets, they are interested in government engineered equality. Not equality of opportunity, but equality of results. They want that safety net to be huge bureaucratic mother for them.
"So a huge mining corporation can save 5% on costs by dumping toxic tailings into the bay, instead of safely returning them to where they came from."
This brings us to the next problem. In their drive to kill manufacturing and return mankind to the stone ages the eco cultists are willing to tell any lie and exaggerate any situation to get their fascist way. No one is dumping any toxic tailings into any bay in Alaska. This is an overt lie of the type that eco cultists are ever ready to scare the public with. First, let's look at the other side of the story and also see how Alaskan's voted on this issue.
http://www.pebblepartnership.com/files/PLP_BM4-2.pdf
"Anchorage, AK - Voters issued a clear vote of confidence in the State of Alaska's water quality standards and regulatory protections for salmon and human health when they defeated Ballot Measure 4 last week, said Pebble Partnership CEO John Shively. "Ballot Measure 4 and its proponents challenged the state's environmental standards and overall regulatory
framework for hard rock mining, and suggested they were insufficient to protect Alaska's important water and fisheries resources," Shively said. "Alaskans disagreed, and reinforced their support for the state and federal permitting process and existing standards for water quality and fish protection as the appropriate measures by which the Pebble Project and other mines in the state should be judged." Ballot Measure 4 was defeated by a 57 - 43 majority. If approved by Alaska voters, the initiative could have introduced new, undefined regulations for all hard rock mines in the state.
"Notwithstanding the outcome of this important vote, the Pebble Partnership remains committed to going beyond compliance with existing environmental regulations to ensure that the significant fisheries resources of Bristol Bay are protected," Shively said."
So there are already a large number of regulations in place to protect the environment and the Bristol Bay fish populations. And the mining company that will be building upstream has every intention of following them all and protecting the environment. That is where the balance is. Not with the kind of cheap alarmist sensationalism that we get from you.
From the parent company for this project:
"The Red Dog Mine operates under the most stringent environmental requirements anywhere. In fact, Alaska is the only state where fisheries get constitutional protections in the state's constitution.
The water quality downstream from Red Dog is now better than it was before mining. Annual studies of the drainages below Red Dog show healthy and robust fish populations.
Numerous studies and sampling efforts show that Kivalina's drinking water downstream from Red Dog meets stringent State of Alaska drinking water standards."
By now one can easily recognize that the lies being told here are the same kind of lies that the eco cultists were telling us when they told us that the Alaskan pipeline would endanger the caribou. But instead the caribou that ranged in the area of the pipeline tripled in number.
And what are these mines doing for the state of Alaska? Remember the people on this forum are claiming that Alaska is a welfare leech at the same time that they want to shut down vital Alaska industries.
"NANA currently operates the Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska with their partner Tek-Cominco. In 2007 mining revenues topped $58 million dollars. Sixty two percent of NANA's profits are distributed to other Native Corporations through the 7-I provision.
The mine currently employees 465 full time employees with an annual payroll of $48 million with almost 56% of those employees being NANA shareholders from a region that is beset with high unemployment and a lack of good job opportunities.
This is money that goes directly into the hands of Native shareholders and comes back in the form of money for schools and local community support. And not just in rural Alaska. The economic benefits are spread statewide.
The Red Dog Mine uses the services of over 350 Alaskan companies every year from catering and engineering to environmental research. Between 1989 and 2007, Red Dog has paid over $150 million in salaries to Anchorage residents and $60 million to those living in the Mat-Su Valley.
Over the last twenty years, NANA has built an entire suite of supply companies that have provided services not only to the mine but to other industries in Alaska. This vertical integration has provided additional benefits to Alaska's economy by creating economic opportunities and good paying jobs."
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:43 am
07 Sep 2008
anarchy and tyranny.
You mean like what we have right now. The anarchy and tyranny of Hobbesian plunder capitalism, and the creeping tyranny of technology, governments, and corporations.
You don't get to pick and choose who is and is not a citizen of "your America".
I have, not "chosen", but recognized. Sure it doesn't mean anything now. All I can do is express what's in my mind's eye. What the truth is.
"I've made it clear I believe the contrary, that only decentralization and simplification can bring civilization through the fire in one (smaller and distributed) piece."
And how would you get there from here??? Do you know ANYTHING about international politics and how nation states behave? Any state trying to "get smaller" would be consumed, if not militarily then by political and economic dominance. How could the US deconstruct? It is not in the realm of the possible.
What's "not in the realm of the possible" is for things to stay the way they are - a crazily top-heavy Tower of Babel, built on sand which is being washed away as we speak.
As for international politics, you again seem incapable of understanding very simple ideas. America is of course not going to enter energy descent and the collapse of the international monetary system and globalization alone. What do you think "international" and "global" mean???? It means everything is interlinked, everything is currently patched and twined and propped up together, and it means everything simplifies together.
So America will hardly be in peril of being "dominated". As dilapidated as its infrastructure is, America still has more to work with than most places. And if the transformation is undertaken in an organized, systematic manner, its position will be even better.
And then there's always that old reliable, the oceans as a barrier. (News flash - post-Peak Oil China is not going to be able to build a fleet to come across the Pacific. The only real foreign problem there's likely to be is a mass migration from Mexico.)
No, trying to correct my use of de jure vice de facto was you knucklehead.
Since you're reduced to childish insults, I'll reiterate my correction. We're talking about societal preferences, not technical or legal outcomes (you only imported that to try to cover up your error), so it is indeed "de facto". Compare de facto vs. de jure segregation. Which do you think is analogous to this argument?
I don't need to provide you with evidence. There's plenty of that right here on Grist
I didn't ask Grist, I asked you. So you admit you can't back up your argument.
Even during the Great Depression the whole thing didn't come apart.
Now you've proven yourself a complete ignoramus. The Depression was a political phenomenon. The resources of the country were still mostly intact (except for the Dust Bowl), the population level was still manageable, the physical structure was not a slave to the automobile, and the financial system, while obviously cracked, still had nowhere near as far to fall as it does today.
Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline.
Most of all, we're running up against the Malthusian limits of fossil fuels, the foundation upon which this civilization is built. Without ever-increasing oil supplies, things fall apart.
The two situations are not even remotely comparable.
Some states will thrive in the coming millenium.
I hope so. I hope to have a role in it. But it won't be "thriving" according to your blinkered notion.
I'll leave you with one example, which will also get us back on topic.
According to this story in today's NYTimes, all these years since Katrina and they still haven't fixed the levees. The stupid place is certainly going to get clobbered again, and again and again.
Now, if even right now, when America is still relatively rich, and was so full of sympathy for the city's post-Katrina plight, it still can't be bothered to fix the problem, really spending just pennies, then how on earth do you expect it to undertake an energy revolution, something vastly more expensive and cumbersome, during energy descent and economic meltdown, when all that paper wealth has evaporated?
New Orleans is a microcosm of what awaits all of America, and the world.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:47 am
07 Sep 2008
"Scientific concensus does not constitute an appeal to authority."
Of course it does. You are appealing to the authority of those scientists who you claim form a consesus.
"It is based on testable theory and data."
No, it's based upon theory that has never been tested in a real world atmosphere and on models that have never been validated. In fact, at this point in time most of the GCMs are falsified.
"Unless you are a climate or energy expert your counter-arguments too depend on this same source."
My counter arguments depend on the raw results for what we know - not the modeled results for what we will have in the future.
"In this case they appear to be an appeal to unknown, unamed authority."
Nope, no unknown or unnamed authorities involved. Only basic measurement data available to anyone.
"and that there is no shortage of oil to power the US economy right here at home."
Are you saying that the assertion that we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil is from a mysterious authority figure. Will you get your head out of you know where and start talking honestly for one second. Talk about denying the data!
I am feeding you the facts and you are fattening up your trollish position with every talking point I have faced down time and time again over the last few years.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:48 am
07 Sep 2008
That paradise does not exist. Only oversight and regulation can check greed and market manipulation. You seem to be far too idealistic about absolute power when it comes to corporations, but see only absolute corruption in elected government.
A self fullfilling prophecy as we see with the Bush administration, McCain Keating 5 scandal, and the Palin administration in Alaska.
She kept that money alloted for the "bridge to nowhere" after all, first being in favor of the bridge, than opposing it. She flip flops just like McCain.
Environmentalists in Alaska tend to disagree with your analysis of the mining operation. Mining company propaganda isn't reliable evidence of anything.
The fact is that Palin sold out the very same small business family fishing interests that her family once relied on. She has risen to the top of the GOP pile and cares nothing about those who still live and work where she and her family started out.
That's "service" I guess, servicing the highest corporate "contributors", "free" market governance in action.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:00 am
07 Sep 2008
What rubish you eco cultists talk. On the one hand you claim that it is impossible to get new oil on line in ten years, on the other you claim that we should be able to complete a huge levee system for New Orleans overnight. Much work has already been done on the levee's, and the completion date is 2011. Pretty reasonable for a project that size.
By the way, why didn't Bill Clinton fix the NO levees in his 8 years?
Of course all of this ignores the stupidity of building a city below sea level to start with.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:12 am
07 Sep 2008
'Shale oil' is a lie that even beggars 'clean coal.'
To mine, crack, crush and steam that mineral to extract the hydrocarbons costs more energy than it yields. That's just physics.
Saluki, you're a troll, and you rely on lies. There really isn't any truth in anything you or your ilk say. You are destroyers, reavers and the enemies of life wherever you are found.
Crawl back into the darkness will you?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:13 am
07 Sep 2008
Trophy hunting human aclimated bears in the Ketmai Reserve, these bears have no fear of humans and have no idea that they are being hunted. It is like hunting cows.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:24 am
07 Sep 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:13 am
07 Sep 2008
Wherever these people go whatever they touch turns from more life to less life. They reserve their greatest praise for dead places and dead people.
Why can't we take a hint?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:33 am
07 Sep 2008
It's definitely not about me... I've made that clear several times.
What you've done in your last post, for at least the sixth time, is avoided answering my direct and fair questions. There's a pattern here. Every time you are asked a challenging question based on your own statements, you simply divert from answering, and instead, twist the discussion to turn it on me or imply I have a position that I've actually never stated. When you do this, you lose all credibility.
Sure, you can keep arguing with more fringe elements here and, given your often extreme positions on the right, make it sound like you're in the center and Grist folks are all "loony, eco-freaks", but this fantasy won't move your cause forward. Why? Because it's not so much your positions themselves that are often out-dated and rigid (though many are), but rather the fact that the way you debate lacks integrity. It is this deep pattern within you which no longer serves you or others. With each passing day, increasingly more people "smell" this about you and quickly know you can't be trusted.
Fact is, I don't disagree with every position you maintain. Some of your positions are factually accurate; some are reasonable; and many others are simply bizarre and out-dated. That's not the problem. The problem is your inability to admit when you're wrong or when you simply don't know what the best answer or solution might be.
If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you start by answering the half dozen or so questions I've asked you in previous posts.
Richard
Permalink
saluki Posted 10:09 am
07 Sep 2008
No, that's just stupidity. A barrel of shale oil can be produced for between $15 and $30 per barrel. And the resultant product is better than Canadian sand oil.
This is from Wiki:
"Royal Dutch Shell has announced that its in situ extraction technology in Colorado would realize a profit when crude oil prices are higher than $30 per barrel ($190/m3), while other technologies at full-scale production assert profitability at oil prices even lower than $20 per barrel ($130/m3).[11][64][65]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_extraction
"Oil-Tech has perfected its extraction process by constructing a full-scale experimental retort. (See figure) The next step is to build a fully-operational commercial retort and prove out the ability to economically produce oil in scale. Each Oil-Tech retort will cost about $2 million to fabricate and will produce 1000 barrels of oil per day. The cost of producing a barrel of oil with the first retort will be approximately $25 per barrel, it will drop to $16 per barrel with the 2nd retort, and by the time the 7th retort is in operation the cost per barrel is expected to be below $10 per barrel."
http://www.eltonresearch.com/oiltechincutah.page?cart=119 ...
"While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years"
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
So once again, the only thing that stands between the United States and total energy independence are the left wing legislators that are intimidated by the eco cultists.
Permalink
saluki Posted 10:32 am
07 Sep 2008
"What you've done in your last post, for at least the sixth time, is avoided answering my direct and fair questions."
Good grief Richard, are you going to rant on about that indefinitely. Go back and look at this subject when I addressed it the first time. In regards to government services I said:
"However, I didn't say that I proposed doing none of it."
I'm not going to draw up a list for you because there are thousands of government services and if I support only two thirds of them it's still a long list. Frankly, Richard, I don't know what your point is, if you have one.
And after complaining that I don't understand your position I gave you a chance to express it and you still haven't done it. So if you don't want me to try to read your mind, then speak your mind, otherwise you will probably be misinterpreted.
Now, you talk about my integrity, but how can one have a conversation with integrity when you are talking to people who express absurd views like this:
"You hate the earth, and love burning up the bioshpere. In fact you derive actual pleasure from it."
And this:
"Anyone who denies that Palin is a wildlife-hater, and then tries to convince us of anything else, is grossly offensive, and is basically a major waste of our time."
And this:
"True energy independence would mean no oil used for anything but chemical feedstocks, train fuel and bunker fuel for shipping and perhaps a bit for the military.
Since nobody is proposing that it's fair to assume that they're lying. It's also pretty fair to assume that their supporters are lying also."
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:11 am
07 Sep 2008
My goodness, you really don't listen well at all. How can I be clearer with you? I have no interest in discussing my positions with you. You've shown no flexibility or openness, so why would I waste my time with such an exercise?
I agree that all the statements you referred to (in your last post) that others made are really out of line and over the top. I don't see much value in those statements. But how do you twist that around to reflect positively on you? Come on, Saluki... you've got to take this up a notch.
As far as my unanswered questions go, you've partially answered one of them. But there are at least five others that remain unanswered. Let's start with two of them. I'll present them here as I did before:
Could you please explain why you believe it is fine to use and exhaust a non-renewable, finite resource like oil? What gives you (or anyone) the right to make this resource unavailable to future generations when there are alternatives that would preserve or at least conserve it? Do you believe depleting a finite resource is indicative of an advanced, intelligent civilization, or is it your position that we can do whatever we want with the Earth's resources... future generations will just have to deal with it?
Did you vote for Bush the last two times around, and if so, given his terrible track record and utter failures almost across the board, why should I place any value in your ability to choose the next president?
Please Saluki... respond to this post only with answers to these two questions.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:46 am
07 Sep 2008
I thought I would spend a few minutes to investigate the integrity of the statements you made about oil shale.
You do realize that Wiki posts are often unreliable, at best... often serving simply to promote the position of a person or business. So I thought I would check the latest news reports about oil shale. To that end, I read four separate news accounts, all posted within the past week.
Turns out, even Shell Oil is quite uncertain if their technology will work. They don't know what the actual production cost will be, nor how much water will ultimately be required or where that will come from. Most importantly, their own spokesperson said "it will be at least until the middle of the next decade before they decide if the process is commercially viable."
So it seems your statements about the viability of oil shale are greatly inflated, unless you have some specific evidence to prove otherwise. If you do, I'd like to review it. Otherwise, I think you need to accept that this may never be a solution and, at best, is at least 7-10 years away with uncertain costs and environmental impacts. If it turns out to be viable and achievable without obvious and serious environmental impacts, we should all consider it at that time, but that time is still years away. Given this, it would seem prudent to move ahead as quickly as possible with known, renewable alternatives that are cost effective. Do you not agree with this?
Thanks.
Richard
Permalink
rbpill1 Posted 12:30 pm
07 Sep 2008
I wrote a blog posting about how the melting icebergs are going to be a boon for tourism: http://greenspotblog.com/?p=48
Sad, but unfortunately true.
Let's hope the next administration will be more green-friendly.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:09 pm
07 Sep 2008
Being truly frightened that Sarah Palin will be elected VP, and soon may find herself President, I would be very happy to learn that somewhere in that Barracuda-babe heart of hers (NOT my epithet, you will note), such as it is, there may reside some little bit of a kind thought for animals or the conservation of wildlife.
Regarding animals and wildlife, all I have heard about this person is:
she boasts of hunting, killing, and butchering caribou and moose;
she strongly approves of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- bad news for caribou, other wildlife, and the local Alaskan Native Peoples;
she has consistently supported the aerial hunting of wolves and grizzly bears;
she has been conscientiously involved in the protest against the Environmental Protection Agency for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Moreover, it is in part precisely because of such attitudes and positions that the Barracuda-babe cheerleaders are so fired up in support of her; they would love her less, if she seemed the least bit kinder or gentler.
So by all means tell me, RDMiller, if you know of any teensy biographical item about Sarah Palin which might suggest she feels the least bit of kindness toward animals, of any kind. I for one would be very happy to learn of it.
But beware: The GOP base might not be so happy.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:00 pm
07 Sep 2008
Our future generations, like my daughter, are essentially receiving a trade off. They get a highly advanced, highly scientific, very wealthy world with a huge infastructure already built for them. If you look at what we had 50 years ago and what we have now, the advancements are obvious. Now if someone wants to live in a cave and contemplate their naval, they may not believe this. Anyone wishing to do this, by the way, has my blessings. I may even join them one day.
In any case, all of the previous generations that have come before have contributed to what is left to the next generation. That there will not be any oil 100 years from now should be no problem. If we go back 100 years most people were traveling by horseback. To think that we will need the same kind of cars 100 years from now as we need today is just not a realistic expectation. Whether it's electric or fuel cell or something else, the things that we are doing today with fossil fuel they will be able to do with some other source of energy. And the technology and infastructure that we are building today will set the stage for the next level of advancement that will make fossil fuel a horse and buggy type answer. In short, I have no guilt about consuming the fossil fuel. But then I'm not the guilt carrying kind.
"Did you vote for Bush the last two times around, and if so, given his terrible track record and utter failures almost across the board, why should I place any value in your ability to choose the next president?"
No, I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else in the last two elections. But if I had voted I would have voted for him. Given the dismal alternatives presented by the left, I would take the same position again.
We had about 6 years of growth under Bush, which is a pretty good percentage of the total. The economic slowdown that we are currently experiencing is happening under a Democrat Congress. One that has basically accomplished nothing and one that has a lower popularity rating than even Bush. Obama and Biden are a part of that group.
After 9/11, which was planned and set up under Clinton, we had no further major terrorist attacks in the US.
My theory is that the war against the Islamists had to happen. They were flush with success after Afghanistan and Chechnya, and they thought that they were going to take over the world. I used to read the Chechen Islamists web sites when they were still doing well there, and the bragging by their primary commanders about how they would soon meet each other in Moscow gave a pretty clear idea of their objective. Al Quida had expansionist ambitions of the same kind. They still regard Spain as belonging to them, for example. While a war in Iraq was problematic in a hundred ways, it was also an ideal war in many ways. Any war on the Arabian Penninsula had special meaning for Islamists. The prophet Mohammed said this about the Arabian Penninsula:
"Sahih Muslim
Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim."
and
"Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.""
By the way, I read the Quran, many of the Hadith, and I studied the history of Islam. So I knew that having an American army on the Arabian Penninsula was going to bring out every Islamic extremist from every Islamic nation to fight them. I knew that it wasn't going to be over after Sadam was defeated. Unfortunately, we couldn't simply go out to the middle of the Gobe dessert and invite the Islamists to fight us there. It was going to have to be somewhere they valued. A win in Iraq would have three advantages. First, it would cut all of the momentum that Al Quida was gathering. Their feeling of invincibility and their thoughts of taking the world would be severly undermined. Second, the planting of a democracy on the Arabian Penninsula would be great for two reasons. First it would give the people of Iraq a choice in their government, and second, it would undermine the Islamic extremists that believe that there can be no democracy because mankind is not free to choose how to live because Allah has already told him how to live. And then Iraq would provide us with a killing ground for Islamic extremists that we could not get in any other way because the majority of them operated in sovereign nations where we could not go. And lastly, I knew from the Chechnya experience that when Islamist were actually in charge of anyplace that they were barbaric in the treatment of their own people and that even people who idealized Islam would soon learn and be sick of the extremists. This was an advantage and a lesson for Muslims that we could never get by fighting Muslims in other places. Anbar is a perfect example. At certain periods the Islamists held certain parts of Anbar and the people were behind them. After some time of experiencing the extremists, the people were anxious to be rid of them. But they wouldn't have had the ability to rid themselves without our help.
Bottom line is that I liked most of Bush's choices even though he may not have known what he was doing when he made them.
Regarding the absence of nukes in Iraq, there I was wrong. I thought that they were there. I think that Bush also thought that they were there, and the pre war speeches that we have from the Democrats indicates that most of them thought that they were there. Some of them gave that indication even before Bush came to power. And of course Sadam admitted that he tried to create the illusion that he had them.
Wars aren't cheap, and our country has certainly paid a high price for this one. But I don't think that most people have any notion of what was coming had the Islamists not been handed a severe and embarrasing defeat at some point. I think I do understand it.
Now, considering the very high economic cost of the war, I believe that our nation has done fairly well when you consider the economic disadvantage such a war put us under.
I would very much have liked to have a president that was capable of communication, but all in all, I think he did fairly well under the circumstances. Oh, and let's not forget that much of the image that he now carries is due to almost 8 years of effort on the part of the media to demonize him and to destroy his reputation.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:24 pm
07 Sep 2008
"she strongly approves of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- bad news for caribou, other wildlife, and the local Alaskan Native Peoples;"
Simply untrue. There is no evidence that drilling ANWR will have any adverse effects on the wildlife population. This is a scare tactic akin to what was used to oppose the Alaska pipeline, and it also turend out to be 100% untrue. You may picture the native peoples as happily living in igloos, but the truth is that they will be happy to have the good paying jobs that drilling in ANWR will provide for them. Also, the footprint of the drilling area is about 2000 acres in an area of several million acres. To keep that footprint small Palin has insured that the oil companies will use horizontal drilling tequniques to cover more area than their above ground access.
"she has consistently supported the aerial hunting of wolves and grizzly bears;"
Also untrue. Her support of hunting wolves from airplanes is not a support for a hunting technique, but rather a support for a predator control technique. The wolves have simply become too numerous and too efficient in certain areas for caribou herds to survive. Palin has supported a program that existed before she was governor to control only certain wolf populations in certain specific areas that serve as birthing grounds for the caribou. In one case a population of 10,000 caribou was reduced to 600 by wolf predation. The wildlife service found that the available food and the pregnancy rate among the female caribou was high. But they also found that 99% of the newborn caribou did not make it through their first two weeks due to wolf predation. Palin's program was designed to remove about 600 wolves out of an Alaskan population of about 11,000, and only to allow the caribou to recover. Killing wolves is not that easy, and doing it from helicopters and airplanes was the only way to make the objective possible. Even with that program they didn't reach their target numbers.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/501699.html
"she has been conscientiously involved in the protest against the Environmental Protection Agency for listing the polar bear as an endangered species."
Which is exactly the right thing to do since polar bears are not endangered and Alaskan land usage can be severly limited by that kind of law, even though the land usage has no effect on the polar bear population. A better approach is to limit the number of polar bear hunting liscenses to a sustainable number, or to even reduce them to zero if necessary.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:58 pm
07 Sep 2008
No, I mean like Somalia has right now. Try going there sometimes and you can see the difference.
"I have, not "chosen", but recognized. Sure it doesn't mean anything now. All I can do is express what's in my mind's eye. What the truth is."
And the truth is that everyone who is a US citizen has just as many rights as Russ does.
"As for international politics, you again seem incapable of understanding very simple ideas. America is of course not going to enter energy descent and the collapse of the international monetary system and globalization alone. What do you think "international" and "global" mean???? It means everything is interlinked, everything is currently patched and twined and propped up together, and it means everything simplifies together."
a. That would not mean a controlled decent and some would descend (and therefore be victimized) faster than others.
b. It assumes a total collapse of the system, which is probably a false assumption.
c. If it does happen, it will truly devastate the environment and probably result in a nuclear holocaust.
"So America will hardly be in peril of being "dominated". As dilapidated as its infrastructure is, America still has more to work with than most places. And if the transformation is undertaken in an organized, systematic manner, its position will be even better."
How many times do I have to say, such a transformation is NOT POSSIBLE? What part of "not possible" are you not comprehending?
"Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline."
This is, of course, completely wrong. They are dependent on cheap energy, so as long as cheap energy can be found, the problem is solved. And low and behold, it's already been found....... solar, wind, nuclear, coal........ all will do just fine.
"Most of all, we're running up against the Malthusian limits of fossil fuels, the foundation upon which this civilization is built. Without ever-increasing oil supplies, things fall apart."
No, they don't fall apart, they morph. And that's what's happening right now.
At any rate, if you are right (and I am sure you are wrong) it doesn't matter. You can not de-construct the system. Period. Not possible. Not even worth discussing.
"I hope so. I hope to have a role in it. But it won't be "thriving" according to your blinkered notion."
You won't have a role in it, you'll be long dead. And unless you have an extensive role in the controlled application of violence, if things do come apart, your chances or survival would be small anyway. Only the predators will survive - others will be dead or enslaved. The natural order of things.
"According to this story in today's NYTimes, all these years since Katrina and they still haven't fixed the levees. The stupid place is certainly going to get clobbered again, and again and again."
The Federal Government is actually fixing the levees - but New Orleans was built where it should not have been. So yes, it's going to get clobbered, along with every other area built around the gulf. Always did get clobbered, but now more and more people are living there, and they shouldn't. Learn the hard way.
"Now, if even right now, when America is still relatively rich, and was so full of sympathy for the city's post-Katrina plight, it still can't be bothered to fix the problem, really spending just pennies, then how on earth do you expect it to undertake an energy revolution, something vastly more expensive and cumbersome, during energy descent and economic meltdown, when all that paper wealth has evaporated?"
It's happening right now. Private industry is working this problem hard precisely because there is money to be made in it - a lot of money.
You, sir, are a nut.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:03 pm
07 Sep 2008
You just can't make stuff like this up.
"Islamists"? So it really is a replay of the crusades then? Is the second coming set to happen too? Oh great oracle, huff some gas from your cracked bunker wall and tell us. Please?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:30 pm
07 Sep 2008
Alaska caribou can't survive the wolves without human assistance. How the caribou survived the 40,000 years with unchecked wolf predation and first peoples hunting is a mystery.
Drilling in alaska doesn't harm the environment. Those are natural pads, roads and pipelines?
Polar bears aren't endangered. A)No climate change. B) Some sort of we-said-so that's why excuse. (never mind missing ice pack)
The future high-technology society (Blade Runner fantasies?) will be worth the mass extinction of species now. Because we're not understanding what biodiversity means.
I think we have a professional troll. We must be doing something right.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:47 pm
07 Sep 2008
I say we try to keep her coming around with extra attention and feeding. Richard and MAC are doing well.
A tag and release maybe the best course now. In case she bolts. I want to hear more about the coming crusade and armageddon that VP Palin will usher in.
God evidently wants her to teach these "islamists" a lesson? Maybe "He" will tell Sarah where to drill for really big oil reserves? God made the oil you know, for "His" people.
I wonder when "He" will take Mccain to his reward with a heart attack or stroke, after the inauguration of course?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:08 pm
07 Sep 2008
Notate bene, my friends (to borrow a slightly over-used McCainism, but much more sincerely intended than was ever by him), that Seluki, whatever he/she/it/all-of-the-above is (Cylon impostor is my guess), has not come up with one simple answer to my simple request (which was actually put to RDMiller, Seluki having proven itself long ago beneath contempt), to tell us about some small instance of kindness that Sarah Palin feels toward animals, of any kind.
Seluki gives us misleading stuff such as this:
<<
Simply untrue. There is no evidence that drilling ANWR will have any adverse effects on the wildlife population.
>>
Of course there is no "evidence" yet, silly!, because the drilling has not yet taken place.
The oil industry's videos showing solitary caribou in the vicinity of pipelines are misleading. Caribou have herding instincts which drilling operations do not favor, even if some individuals may be able to cope.
Also, it is ill-educated to write about "wildlife population" in the singular. Biodiversity-environmentalists are concerned about many species, especially mammals and birds, as well as many plants, in a number of different ecosystems.
Just like a friend of money-hungry Cheney-ally Palin to over-simplify!
<<
This is a scare tactic akin to what was used to oppose the Alaska pipeline, and it also turend out to be 100% untrue. You may picture the native peoples as happily living in igloos, but the truth is that they will be happy to have the good paying jobs that drilling in ANWR will provide for them.
>>
The Gwich'in spokeswoman and activist, Sarah James (an infinitely better pick for VP, IMHO, than her namesake), of Arctic Village, AK, on the southern border of ANWR, has not very long ago already told Grist, and Grist readers, that drilling in ANWR will be disastrous for her people.
See also Peter Mathiessen's essay in Subhankar Banerjee's excellent book of photos of ANWR, and essays about it, "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land." We must never forget that GOP leaders suppressed the show of Banerjee's photographs in the Smithsonian, in early 2003, while discussion of drilling in ANWR was taking place on the Senate floor (well, the show went on, but the captions were gutted, and the space was moved to a little-visited downstairs corridor).
<<
Also, the footprint of the drilling area is about 2000 acres in an area of several million acres. To keep that footprint small Palin has insured that the oil companies will use horizontal drilling tequniques to cover more area than their above ground access.
>>
You know, I hope this is true, seeing that we defenders are probably going to lose.
Still, consider the Exxon/Valdez, and remember that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong; and when it does, lots and lots of vulnerable creatures suffer and die, and there is nothing to be done about it.
And anyway, there is nothing "patriotic" or "America-loving" about Alaskan oil. It goes to
East Asia, where the market is. And all the bully-bully-ness of John Mccain and Sarah Palin cannot change that, unless they want to morph into Joseph Stalin and Leonid[itska] Brezhnev[ska] -- not a good move for members of the GOP.
<<
Her support of hunting wolves from airplanes is not a support for a hunting technique, but rather a support for a predator control technique. The wolves have simply become too numerous and too efficient in certain areas for caribou herds to survive. Palin has supported a program that existed before she was governor to control only certain wolf populations in certain specific areas that serve as birthing grounds for the caribou. In one case a population of 10,000 caribou was reduced to 600 by wolf predation. The wildlife service found that the available food and the pregnancy rate among the female caribou was high. But they also found that 99% of the newborn caribou did not make it through their first two weeks due to wolf predation. Palin's program was designed to remove about 600 wolves out of an Alaskan population of about 11,000, and only to allow the caribou to recover. Killing wolves is not that easy, and doing it from helicopters and airplanes was the only way to make the objective possible. Even with that program they didn't reach their target numbers.
>>
As Amazing said: "You just can't make stuff like this up."
This description of a predator/prey relationship is totally unbelievable. It is unworkable. It does not happen. If prey species and predator species exist in the same ecosystem, the predation rate can simply not be as high as is here claimed. The ecosystem would have collapsed long ago.
And so, the description is plainly a fiction.
Please tell me, somebody, that at some point in her life, Sarah Palin took in an orphaned caribou lamb, and nursed it with a baby bottle. I would really love to hear such a story.
But by the same token, I dread to hear that later, once the young caribou was fattened up, SP released it in her mastiff pit, as a kind of entertainment-plus-dinner for her carnivorous carcharodontic allies.
<<
"she has been conscientiously involved in the protest against the Environmental Protection Agency for listing the polar bear as an endangered species."
Which is exactly the right thing to do since polar bears are not endangered and Alaskan land usage can be severly limited by that kind of law, even though the land usage has no effect on the polar bear population. A better approach is to limit the number of polar bear hunting liscenses to a sustainable number, or to even reduce them to zero if necessary.
>>
But, but, but, polar bears ARE endangered; and "Alaskan land usage" should of course be limited, for the sake of human beings and of wildlife (not just the bears) alike.
However, OK, I think we can all agree that discouraging trophy-hunting is a great and good thing, although it does not seem to be a high priority in Alaska state governance.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:09 pm
07 Sep 2008
Here's an experiment. Take a glass of water and add some ice cubes. Put a mark on the glass at the level of the water. Now wait for the ice to melt and look at the water level. If it has moved, you have just proved Archimedes wrong.
You see, as the ice melts it becomes slightly denser. So it occupies a smaller volume. In fact, the volume of ice melt matches exactly the volume of ice that lay beneath the surface. So there is no net change in the volume of water in the glass. Fortunately for us!
However, the ice melt from glaciers and ice sheets on land (as well as thermal expansion of the oceans) will raise sea level many meters (see article above). And the loss of summer Arctic ice will destroy long-established ecosystems and accelerate global warming by decreasing the albedo effect.
Permalink
Russ Posted 4:19 pm
07 Sep 2008
That's why they're so fired up about getting one of their own god-spewing redneck brethren on the ticket.
(That's why it's ok to rape the earth. Though they never do explain, if the Second Coming is imminent, why are corporate profits still important?)
pangolin -
Alaska caribou can't survive the wolves without human assistance. How the caribou survived the 40,000 years with unchecked wolf predation and first peoples hunting is a mystery.
Didn't you hear? The earth has only existed 5000 years. You're just a pagan liar with your devil science and nefarious "reason".
canis - Arguing with troll-appeasers like RDMiller is just as fruitless as arguing with trolls. They're really the same thing.
mac -
"Today the level of debt is astronomical, absolutely irremediable. The country is bankrupt; the infrastructure is falling apart. Residences, business, food delivery, and government are all laid out in such a way as to be absolutely dependent, as dependent as a newborn infant, upon the car and cheap gasoline."
This is, of course, completely wrong. They are dependent on cheap energy, so as long as cheap energy can be found, the problem is solved. And low and behold, it's already been found....... solar, wind, nuclear, coal........ all will do just fine.
Now you can't even tell the difference between an energy crisis and a liquid fuel crisis, which is about as elementary as a concept gets.
Only a lunatic thinks we're going to have untold billions of plug-ins or electric cars.
I'm no longer going to argue with your willful ignorance and utter inability to do anything but spout dogma.
You did say ONE thing which is right on - New Orleans is existentially unsustainable, and should never have existed as a large civilian city in the first place.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:38 pm
07 Sep 2008
Only a lunatic thinks we're going to have untold billions of plug-ins or electric cars."
I see, so now it's a "liquid fuel crisis". It doesn't matter what powers the transportation needs, as long as they are powered. You are rationalizing - because you want to. Again, you want civilization to crumble. You have this fantastically naive idea that it's going to turn into something romantic. But it won't. If it comes apart it will be like a bad MAD MAX film.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 7:35 pm
07 Sep 2008
Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea-level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study ($ub. req'd), "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise," which concludes:
On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.
Laudations Jo' for this wonderful "good news", it is certainly a huge improvement over recent reports that sea level rise (SLR) has been flat to negative in the last few years! (and rather slight before that.... The ACTUAL DATA I mean).
However, we all know that actual data is not necessarily a true indication of the properly modelled events, either past or future. For instance, just as Armageddon did not happen in the year 2000, as wrongly predicted by many rapturous Christians, this does not mean that it will not happen! I reckon 2100 has a good feel to it; like a mystic eventuality! In numerology, it should be noted that 21 is a magic multiple of 7 x 3, and making that product centennial is particularly powerful. Is everyone happy going with 2100?
If only I and Hansen et al, could be here to say: "told you so!"
Listen to good news
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 8:07 pm
07 Sep 2008
We are now engaged in a set of actions that has consequences of worldwide proportions. Our knowledge is more extensive, and aided by computers, we can see the health of the whole world at once. The plants and animals of the Earth have the quality of rebirth. Surely mankind is meant to take care that the cycles of life are sustained.
We have the examples of previous civilizations which burned and salted and killed their supporting ecosystems. Now we are looking at a threat to the preservation of not just one valley, but our worldwide civilization.
There will be some people too terrified to do anything but wail. Eventually they will take heart and realize that mankind is but one creature among many, and that our survival is inextricably linked to the health of all other life on Earth.
Our purpose here is to use the knowledge which we have and cannot deny to act so as to preserve all species that live on Earth.
We know that burning fossil fuels increases the world's temperature and causes catastrophes like dying coral, burning forests, and collapsing levees which are getting worse and worse.
We could decide,today, that every new energy installation, every new building and over a couple years most existing building and parking lots and telephone pole and freeway fences and other places will have solar panels.
An investment in that technology that would give us, in just a few years, a replacement for the coal fired and natural gas fired electric plants and oil burning vehicles. Instead of continuing to give 100 times as much government support to the oil industry as we do to the alternate energy, we could make the decision that we will not allow global warming to steal our children's future.
We cannot convince everybody, but we can help enough policy makers understand the science so that our country does the right thing.
Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resource Defense Council have good information.
Thanks for listening
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:17 pm
07 Sep 2008
Is this good news because it's less than you expected, or good news because you want sea levels to rise?
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 8:27 pm
07 Sep 2008
You did say ONE thing which is right on - New Orleans is existentially unsustainable, and should never have existed as a large civilian city in the first place.
Sorry Russ, that great city just happens to be there.
Now go away and read-up how the Dutch have reclaimed so much land from the sea.
Try key-words: Holland or Netherlands, where the Dutch people live. Maybe low-countries?
Another Key word: Dyke.
Listen to good news
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:35 pm
07 Sep 2008
You both must be so stuck in your own rigid mindsets (just like Saluki, but to the other side) that you can't even recognize a respectful dialogue that includes listening to the other side. I can listen to Saluki to better understand her without agreeing with anything she says. Or, I can agree with SOME of the things she says when she is either factually accurate (as she has been some of the time) or has a balanced perspective on a particular item, while still strongly disagreeing with her opinions on many critical issues.
I think this problem with the way you two think (remember... I'm only stating this because of your OWN statements) is what drives folks like Saluki to brand all of us as "left-wing loony eco-freaks". You're not serving anyone with your rigidity and your unwillingness to agree with an "opposing" party when they state something that is actually correct.
Loosen up, please. And pay better attention to my words.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:23 pm
07 Sep 2008
Thank you for your reply. It helps me to better understand your perspective.
It would be pointless to debate your arguments one by one. As I said in my first post to you, from where you are coming from, there's no chance you can shift your thinking in any meaningful way simply from a discussion alone. (I hope others take note of this. It's really useless to debate item for item with Saluki.)
It's my opinion that your belief system is what led us to war in Iraq and has directly resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of humans, unnecessarily. I think a different belief system would not have had this effect.
It's my opinion that actions emanating from belief systems like your own is resulting in a far less healthy and biodiverse ecosystem, and potentially one that will have catastrophic consequences. I think a different believe system could avoid and reverse this, and create a much higher quality of life for humans and all other creatures on this planet.
It's my opinion that actions resulting from your belief system cause excessive inequality in the distribution of fundamental life-sustaining resources, creating intolerable levels of misery and pain for billions of people every day. A different belief system could change this circumstance immediately.
And it is my opinion that the limitations of your belief system greatly restrain opportunities to create and sustain a world powered by inexpensive, renewable, clean, efficient and largely decentralized energy.
For all of these reasons (and many more), I have a very different belief system. As yours becomes more and more painful to bear (and it will, because you have a heart and a soul which seek evolution and harmony), that (and only that) will lead you to adopt new ways of seeing the world. Until then, I will do my best to respect you, while working my hardest to create a better world and reverse (or at least confine) the almost unimaginable damage I believe is occurring from the actions of millions who carry beliefs like yours. Fortunately, the days when your belief system ruled the world are numbered and waning quickly. Enjoy it while you can.
Richard
P.S. I note you didn't answer my post about oil shale, in which I challenged statements you put forth with direct evidence to the contrary.
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:58 pm
07 Sep 2008
Why would you care that a flat-earth thug and incorrigible liar calls you names? Boy, if I had such a thin skin about name-calling I would've had to put my head in the oven a long time ago.
I admit I can't be bothered to read everything this person wrote, but judging by what I did read, here and in her nutjob ravings about abortion on another thread, I think it's safe to assume if she ever does get anything right it's by accident.
So again, why would you care?
3."You're not serving anyone with your rigidity and your unwillingness to agree with an "opposing" party when they state something that is actually correct"?
You're not serving anyone when you argue with a brick wall. And you're certainly not serving anyone when you seem to side with aggressive stupidity vs. what you called, if I recall correctly, the "fringe elements here".
That is what you called us, right? And it certainly seemed you did it by way of showing solidarity with the troll. If I'm incorrect about that, ok, but that's how it read to me.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:24 am
08 Sep 2008
It's interesting that you completely misinterpreted my use of the phrase "fringe elements here" to think that it applied to the Grist crowd in general. What I was saying is that there is "a" fringe element here at Grist. In other words, some smaller percentage of folks here are at the extreme left... NOT the bulk of the Grist crowd.
I think if you had been paying attention to my posts over time you'd realize I have far more opinions in sync with the "middle of the pack" Grist mentality than not.
Saying Saluki is a "brick wall" and a person of "aggressive stupidity" doesn't reflect well on your tolerance or compassion. Relax. There are many (though a minority these days) who still think like Saluki. Let's hear them out and debate with facts, creativity and wisdom.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:34 am
08 Sep 2008
Anyway, my job is not to form a consensus and lead. Perhaps that is the job of David Roberts. My job is to speak up for the vulnerable, suffering creatures who have no voice.
Remember this, regarding that stalwart conservative hero Barry Goldwater (from the Wikipedia article on him):
<<
Goldwater boldly (and famously) declared in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." This paraphrase of Cicero ...
>>
Marcus Tullius Cicero was out of the loop, once the fighting got rough between Marcus Antonius (Cleopatra's serious boyfriend) and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (the future first emperor, aka Augustus). As punishment, his head and hands were displayed on the Rostra, in the Roman Forum. Still, he had his moments of glory. He kept philosophy alive in Western Europe; and he founded Western liberal-arts education.
As for Barry Goldwater: I have no complaint that somebody from the good German-Jewish family called Goldwasser should have changed his name to suit anglophone tastes; but settling in Arizona is WAY problematic.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 1:06 am
08 Sep 2008
This does not help. It does the opposite and RIGHT NOW we (the progressive, pro-environment people) need to attract those who are not sure what to think. I find it very DANGEROUS to use language that will show our thinking as irrational. What is all this nonsense talk about wild-life haters? Skunks having guardian angels? Wild guesses regarding abstract knowledge of animals? Anti-German language? Trolls? People hating civilization?
How about sticking to scientific facts rather than displaying romantic ,want-to-be-true attitudes or emotional mind-sets that border on insanity or are plain insulting. Left or right, I don't care. At this blog here I prefer if those who oppose taking serious actions to help the environment display those attitudes. Even though it is annoying, it helps the cause when they show their true face. But the other (my) side? No thanks. Stick to (real or suspected) facts and measurable or reported evidence please. There should be enough to argue a point. And if convincing does not help on that level, it won't work at other levels either. Wasted energy (and I oppose that).
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
08 Sep 2008
I think of Saluki's brand of anti-environmentalism as a great opportunity to convince swing voters to come down on the side of reasonable regulation and government action to avert climate and economic disaster.
Hopefully the strident opposition won't discourage more conservative purveyors of softball talking point arguments we can hit out of the blog every time they are pitched.
Good to see you here Saluki, keep up the good work!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:58 am
08 Sep 2008
""My theory is that the war against the Islamists had to happen."
You just can't make stuff like this up."
Yeah, I realized when I wrote that line that it would be like Pavlov ringing his bell and that you would come running with drool dripping off your chin. Of course the statement is no different that a statement like "The war against Hitler had to happen". Not for the purpose of supporting any ideaology or religion, but simply because the expansionist ambitions of the islamic fundamentalists were not going to stop without it.
"Is the second coming set to happen too? Oh great oracle, huff some gas from your cracked bunker wall and tell us. Please?"
I guess I overestimated your intelligence amazingdrx. I would have thought that you would come up with something better than the worn out bag of tricks that has been the attack arsenal for the intolerant and bigoted left for decades now. I already made clear that I have no religion whatsoever. But you are so limited and narrow minded in your thinking that you cannot escape the stereotyped thinking that you do every day. So even though I have no religion, you are so stupid that the only thing that you can think of is to attack with the same old anti Christian tools that you've been using most of your life, regardless of how inappropriate they are.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:07 am
08 Sep 2008
Your input here is valued.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 3:07 am
08 Sep 2008
Come on! Help us become smarter not angrier!
Karsten
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:14 am
08 Sep 2008
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/906397/
Now these are some STRANGE people. Someone needs to tell the woman talking to the rock that rocks are no animate objects - they don't, nor did they ever, "live".
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 4:40 am
08 Sep 2008
Richard - I am indeed intolerant of those who have rendered themselves literally intolerable, through their aggressive anti-intellectualism and their vicious intolerance of anything which doesn't turn a maximum profit, or which doesn't feed their religious hatred.
On the other hand I'm happy to leave in peace those who are willing to live in peace.
I similarly have no compassion for those who are aggressively uncompassionate themselves.
This is because I have endless compassion for humanity and the earth, both of which have for so long been under such ruthless assault by these criminals.
I also find the all-too-common blaming the victim to be despicable. Not only bullies, but many bystanders, get mortally affronted when a victim of persecution DARES to fight back. I guess it upsets the order of things or something, when say an atheist, whose brethren have been persecuted and tortured and murdered for thousands of years in the name of so-called christianity, in the name of hate and mental darkness and hypocrisy and everything else endemic to that religion, dares to protest vs. the continuing oppression, which is unbelievable and intolerable in this day and age.
As for the cowardly notion we hear all too often from "moderates" nowadays, that we should tiptoe around scared of our own shadows and play by all the rules that only our side is supposed to recognize, and get ourselves dressed up in our sunday best in the desperate hope to impress some ignorant and mentally deficient "swing voter" - that's not only spriritually repugnant, it's also doomed to fail.
Do you really think anyone with any rational capacity doesn't already know the basic facts about how the Republicans are destroying this country? That their economic, energy, environmental, foreign, and social policies have all been disasters, and portend further catastrophe? That however little confidence you might have in the Democrats to turn things around, it's still a no-brainer that to give them a chance is the only possible way to mitigate the damage?
Anyone to whom all this is not clear is beyond the reach of facts, science, reason, or morality. So if you want to reach them, there's no other option, but to take the fight to the enemy, using the enemy's own weapons against them.
(Not that I think that's what's going on here on this blog. I may be wrong, but I imagine most people who come here already believe in ecological values and don't need to be convinced as far as for whom to vote.)
How do you think the modern (last 30 years or so) incarnation of the Rep party has not only survived but thrived? On paper they shouldn't have a chance. They represent nothing at the core but nihilism - just hate, fear, and greed. All their "ideas" are just fig-leaves for these.
Who is their proper constituency? The rich, religious wackos, and gutter thugs. None of these is a large group. So how do they get so many non-rich and non-fanatical people to vote for them against their own interests? They do it by lying, scapegoating, and mustering fear.
We certainly do not need to lie or scapegoat, since we're on the right side of ideas and issues, and facts, science, and reason are with us. As for fear, there was a post and comment thread on that just a week or so ago, so I won't revisit it here.
But that's no reason to tie our hands tactically. Because we have integrity is no reason to fetishize tactical scruple to the point of cravenness.
Gore and Kerry insisted on "taking the high road" while they were being kneecapped and kicked in the balls, and look at where it got them.
You don't bring a wrestling rulebook to a midnight alley knife fight. But usually that's all the Reps' opponents are able to do, and it's this unilateral disarmament which gives them strength.
How else can you explain these polls even being close?
I'll tell you one thing - it's not because of nasty, disreputable radicals like me.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 5:19 am
08 Sep 2008
Obviously, you are angry about what's going on. There's plenty to be angry about. I've not experienced that that path works for me, though.
While I share many of your hopes and dreams for a better world (as best I can tell from what you've written), I have doubts anger, labeling, fighting and the "eye for an eye" approach will get us there any quicker. No, I'm not suggesting being timid, cautious or even withholding one's feelings, but there are other paths to change.
You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Heck... two different approaches to a similar goal... sounds like we're covering the bases.
Richard
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 5:46 am
08 Sep 2008
This has nothing to do with accepting lies or twisted logic. Bullshit needs to be labeled bullshit.
Karsten
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:17 am
08 Sep 2008
Obviously, you are angry about what's going on. There's plenty to be angry about. I've not experienced that that path works for me, though.
Yes, I do get riled up these days.
The next few years are man's last chance, and it looks like he's going to throw it away - and all this recklessness, irresponsibility, destruction, and contempt for the earth and the human spirit, have all been in the service of something so miserable, so wretched, so petty, just this gutter materialism....and I'm trapped amid it and forced to witness it.
Hmmm, yes, it does angry up the blood. I guess I need to work more on being ice-cold rather than red-hot, since I do in fact aspire to a wider field of activity than commenting on a blog.
Geez, I wish I knew of any organized, eco-intent gardeners in my vicinity. Now that's something I could get into.
Maybe even make me forget to be angry.
If anyone wants to read a beautiful short story about how a vibrant, soil-cherishing, humanistic life can arise from darkness, despoliation, and despair, read The Man Who Created Paradise, linked from Energy Bulletin.
I haven't stopped thinking about it since I read it.
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:36 am
08 Sep 2008
"Of course there is no "evidence" yet, silly!, because the drilling has not yet taken place."
So what, exactly, do you expect to happen? Do you think that the drillers are going to tie the polar bear down and run drill bits through them? Do you think that the trucks are going to ruin the fine pasture land up there that the Polar Bear graze on? Do you think that they are going to be scared out of their wits by having a few humans around?
You do remember that polar bears roam around downtown Churchill Manitoba without a care about the presence of human beings. In fact it is the humans who get the hell out of the way when they show up.
Maybe you could be more specific about the nature of this disaster that you see happening if we drill ANWR.
"The oil industry's videos showing solitary caribou in the vicinity of pipelines are misleading. Caribou have herding instincts which drilling operations do not favor, even if some individuals may be able to cope."
I guess more than a few individuals are able to cope. The Central Arctic herd who's calving grounds overlap with the oil fields of the north slope have increased their population from 5,000 before the pipeline activities to around 30,000 today. The largest herd that regularly crosses the pipeline, the Porcupine herd, has trippled in population.
"The Gwich'in spokeswoman and activist, Sarah James (an infinitely better pick for VP, IMHO, than her namesake), of Arctic Village, AK, on the southern border of ANWR, has not very long ago already told Grist, and Grist readers, that drilling in ANWR will be disastrous for her people."
So you are saying that employment would be disasterous for the Inuit. How, exactly, would employment be disasterous for the Inuit?
"You know, I hope this is true, seeing that we defenders are probably going to lose."
It's 2,000 acres out of a total of 19.5 million acres.
"Still, consider the Exxon/Valdez, and remember that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong; and when it does, lots and lots of vulnerable creatures suffer and die, and there is nothing to be done about it."
Yeap, the occassional oil spill will happen. But we are getting better and better at cleaning them up and returning the wildlife to the area. And we are getting better and better at insuring that fewer and fewer of them happen. Look, every time you get in your car you risk your life. Many people are killed in car accidents. But sometimes we decide that the rewards are bigger than the risks. The rewards of drilling are much larger than the risks of spills.
"And anyway, there is nothing "patriotic" or "America-loving" about Alaskan oil. It goes to East Asia, where the market is."
Another delusion that you eco cultists live under. All Alaskan oil goes to West Coast refineries and is consumed in the US.
"And all the bully-bully-ness of John Mccain and Sarah Palin cannot change that, unless they want to morph into Joseph Stalin and Leonid[itska] Brezhnev[ska]"
No, it's Obama and Biden that are the budding communists, not McCain and Palin.
"This description of a predator/prey relationship is totally unbelievable. It is unworkable. It does not happen. If prey species and predator species exist in the same ecosystem, the predation rate can simply not be as high as is here claimed. The ecosystem would have collapsed long ago.
And so, the description is plainly a fiction."
I can't completely disagree with you on this. The 99% number sounds exceptionally high. But I doubt that they made up the count of the caribou herd going from 10,000 to 600.
Now, I don't doubt that caribou and wolves will balance in the long run. But population crashes of both wolves and caribou are common. As long as wolves are able to catch enough game, including Caribou, their populations will increase. As their numbers increase the predation on the Caribou herds increases beyond the abilities of the herds to maintain their populations. The herd populations crash, and eventually the wolf populations crash when there is little game for them to hunt. After the wolf populations crash the Caribou herds rebuild and the cycle begins all over. Many years ago I read a doctoral dissertation about jack rabbit populations in New Mexico. They had a similar relationship with the coyotes and those jackrabbit populations varied by a factor of 10 to 1. Now Palin could have decided to simply let those crash and recover cycles go uninterrupted, but the state decided that they didn't want to do this even before she became governor.
"Please tell me, somebody, that at some point in her life, Sarah Palin took in an orphaned caribou lamb, and nursed it with a baby bottle. I would really love to hear such a story."
How about a compassion story about Obama. Obama has a half brother, George Hussein Onayango Obama, who lives in a shanty town outside of Niarobi Kenya. He lives on about one dollar a month. Obama has visited his half brother, knows where he is and how he lives, but he has never sent him a single buck to help him. Obama could have made a huge difference to his half brother on what would have amounted to pocket change for him - and yet he did nothing. I expect that when Obama is able to send his brother other peoples tax money rather than his own, his compassion will greatly increase.
"But, but, but, polar bears ARE endangered; "
No, they are not. Their population is healthy and robust. Their being placed on the endangered list is a speculative placement about the expected results of AGW, not a placement that has anything to do with their actual numbers. In any case, their population has nothing to do with drilling, and I see no reason why drilling would diminish their numbers.
"However, OK, I think we can all agree that discouraging trophy-hunting is a great and good thing, although it does not seem to be a high priority in Alaska state governance."
Like I said before, I don't hunt. But I have no issues with an agency controlled hunting program that protects wildlife populations from overhunting. And if populations get too small, I have no problem with cutting the hunting to zero.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:11 pm
08 Sep 2008
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 pm
08 Sep 2008
You want her press on nailed finger on the nuke-you-ler button? Unbelievable. This country is really turning into an asylum, run by the inmates.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:46 pm
08 Sep 2008
So "Drill, drill, drill" is actually a prayer? Amen...and amen. God will make more oil, like Jesus made wine.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:49 pm
08 Sep 2008
"I thought I would spend a few minutes to investigate the integrity of the statements you made about oil shale. "
Good for you. That means we can talk about facts instead of engaging in psychobabble.
"You do realize that Wiki posts are often unreliable, at best... often serving simply to promote the position of a person or business."
You bet I do. For example, their AGW stuff is pure crap. The AGW editor is a guy who ran for the green party in England. So there is no chance of getting a balanced presentation. But a lot of people seem to put faith in Wiki. It's good that you don't.
"Turns out, even Shell Oil is quite uncertain if their technology will work. They don't know what the actual production cost will be, nor how much water will ultimately be required or where that will come from. Most importantly, their own spokesperson said "it will be at least until the middle of the next decade before they decide if the process is commercially viable." "
I don't think that there is an issue about their technology working. They have been working on a pilot plant for years, and they have already extracted oil successfully. However, I have always been skeptical about their costs. First they freeze an area around the area of interest where they want to extract the oil. Then they heat the kerogen to turn it to oil. The heating and cooling must go on for a long time before the oil can be extracted. It would seem to me that would take a lot of energy. But hey, they quoted the price.
"So it seems your statements about the viability of oil shale are greatly inflated, unless you have some specific evidence to prove otherwise."
Woohaa! Are you telling me that the Shell proceedure is the only one that you looked at? What about the Oil Tech proceedure that I gave you a quote and a link from. That is the horse that I'm putting my money on. Their proceedure looks to be inexpensive, fairly clean, and having very low water requirements. It's also efficient and requires very little outside energy.
"Oil-Tech has perfected its extraction process by constructing a full-scale experimental retort. (See figure) The next step is to build a fully-operational commercial retort and prove out the ability to economically produce oil in scale. Each Oil-Tech retort will cost about $2 million to fabricate and will produce 1000 barrels of oil per day. The cost of producing a barrel of oil with the first retort will be approximately $25 per barrel, it will drop to $16 per barrel with the 2nd retort, and by the time the 7th retort is in operation the cost per barrel is expected to be below $10 per barrel."
http://www.eltonresearch.com/oiltechincutah.page?cart=119 ... ...
Oil Tech has now merged with an Australian company, but I believe they are still planning to go ahead with their process if they can line up enough shale oil acerage. But most of the acerage is federal land, so there is that mess to deal with.
"but that time is still years away."
My guess is that the Oil Tech method could at least start delivering some oil in 3 years if the government got behind them.
"Given this, it would seem prudent to move ahead as quickly as possible with known, renewable alternatives that are cost effective. Do you not agree with this?"
I think we should be moving ahead with nuclear as well as with shale oil as well as with ANWR as well as with Alaskan gas as well as with more off shore drilling. At this point I think that the renewables are too unreliable and too costly. When they get to be reliable and cost competitive, then let's start using them.
Here is a clip of a wind farm for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m09vkAIJBXQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo&feature=re ...
Not to mention the health issues that are starting to emerge about wind farms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mablINxg3zE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvSDw5Gll0&feature=re ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:51 pm
08 Sep 2008
Watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:01 pm
08 Sep 2008
Solar cogeneration on rooftops along with biogas from waste and smart grid technology will provide. No need for Palin to pray for oil and gas, or pray for more oil wars.
Wind, wave, and ocean current power can be done on floatinfg platforms offshore, and would have the added benefit of protecting fisheries from industrial foreign fishing, preserving fish for small family fishing businesses.
Plugin hybrids running on these power sources and other conservation systems like ground source heating/cooling finish the energy independence plan.
You just jumped in here saluki, we have been all over these energy issues here for years.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:09 pm
08 Sep 2008
Humor works better. Colbert is the master at this. It's almost impossible to insult, when the target laughs it off, and turns it around.
The gentler the satirical response, the more better it works. The unflappibility deflects the intent of the insult.
You will notice that really insulting commenters like saluki do not grasp this concept. They let the insults fly constantly thinking it is helping them "win".
But this is not about winning and losing. It's about what the readers and voters think about the comments.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:52 pm
08 Sep 2008
My mother is moving out here to be with me, a tough move for a mid 70s woman, but cost of living is low and I don't want her in a nursing home as she ages. She is going to have a house custom built, and we talked about it, she wants solar power and her own well water.......... a self sustaining house. Easily doable today.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 3:56 pm
08 Sep 2008
Is this good news because it's less than you expected, or good news because you want sea levels to rise?
My preliminary answer is:
None of the above!
See my following post, in which I further hope to befriend and explore the dogma of some of the greenies here.
BW
Listen to good news
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 3:59 pm
08 Sep 2008
Although the year 2100 suggested in the lead article, seems to be a very strong omen, for the absolution of our sins, particularly WRT the numerology of 7 x 3 x 100, perhaps I should caution any absolute optimism of the great rapture to be precisely then in 2100. After all, despite good modelling, many previous forecasts have variously and surprisingly, not eventuated in the past.
A potential risk to the apparent strong certainty of 2100, that I see here is;.... that Christian theologians are generally of the view that Jesus was not born at the cusp of "the year zero", but some four years later. Thus, although the numerology aspects seem convincingly powerful for 2100, we may have a zero calibration error. Thus it may be that our surviving issue may be deprived for an additional four years, until 2104. Pazienzia must they have! `twill come for them! (`tis just another minor model adjustment) Shucks, if only I could be here to experience it!
Listen to good news
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:30 pm
08 Sep 2008
Factories in desert areas could be directly solar powered from concentrating solar cogeneration on roofs and over their parking areas. Storing heat in molten salt and selling excess power back to the grid.
Yeah you definitely can do it all from your roof mounted solar in your warm sunny clime there. Do you have cooling needs there, besides refrigeration?
I wonder what ground water temperature is there? It might cool and dehumidify a home for your mom with direct circulation, a very low power system. That can be comforting.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:30 pm
08 Sep 2008
I'll respond to this post of yours with the best answer I can give you, but one I suspect you are not currently able to understand. Please try to consider what I am saying, though.
It is possible Oil-Tech will eventually be successful in producing oil from shale at a cost competitive price. I'll give you that. But it's equally possible they won't.
However, I want you to look at how strongly your own personal views cloud your judgment.
A substantial part of your argument (as I've read from previous posts of yours) for continuing to use oil is that we have vast quantities available through oil shale. You then go on to say we shouldn't rely on renewables because "they are too costly and unreliable". Yet, you would place your bets on oil shale that we have far less data on, in terms of final costs and reliability.
There is absolutely no logic to this. Obviously, we know far more about the reliability and costs of renewables than oil-to-shale technology.
When you do this, Saluki, it sends a loud message to everyone that you can't be trusted, because you'll twist your arguments any way you wish to support your personal opinions and agenda.
But I want to go beyond this with you.
My intuition tells me to always place my bets on technologies that are most in harmony with nature and least disruptive. Why? Because we still know so little about the complexity of the Earth's systems and how all the pieces fit together. It takes just a little common sense to realize that it's a safer bet to use technologies that do not disrupt natural systems, rather than those that do.
Extracting millions of tons of Earth (shale) to produce oil, or simply extracting oil or gas from inside the Earth and dispensing it into the atmosphere, inherently feels like a bad idea. Something deep inside me says "no.... find a better way".
I don't know for certain what the impacts of using fossil fuels are, but everything inside me says it doesn't make sense to persist with this. You can't feel that in yourself?
On a more technical level, the likelihood that we can't overcome the reliability issues with wind or solar is incredibly low. Even for you, Saluki, that is a terribly poor argument to use. We can make nuclear more reliable than wind or solar? Come on, Saluki.
You do realize that sooner or later one or perhaps many nuclear facilities will be destroyed by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or some other natural or man-made disasters. It's inevitable, and I think many people sense that. What will be the effects of that? My intuition says it's not worth finding out, given that there are other alternatives.
I noticed you left biomass out of your list of renewables. The technology for direct conversion of biomass to electric and/or heat is well known and thoroughly tested, as is the low cost of producing energy through this means. I've demonstrated in previous posts how we could produce the equivalent of 200 new nuclear facilities from biomass energy plantations using all known technology. This would decentralize power and create far more jobs for Americans than any technology you have talked about so far. Why dig up millions of tons of oil shale, divert rivers, destroy mountains, and damage ecosystems, all with potentially disastrous side effects, when we could safely grow trees and grasses using nature's proven technology of photosynthesis?
The difference between you and me is that when it comes to complex issues, I tend to follow the wisdom and logic of "do that which does the least harm". Seems you don't agree with this approach.
On a separate, but somehow related, issue, I wanted you to consider this thought about Ms. Palin.
As someone who has made it a point to study human nature for some 35 or so years, I've noticed that any woman (or man, for that matter) who would compare herself to a pit bull is not someone I would ever consider giving any power to. It's my opinion that someone like this cannot be trusted to make wise choices, and probably has deep seated emotional problems. That's not to make Ms. Palin a bad person... not at all. I would just consider her untrustable and in need of psychological help.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:00 pm
08 Sep 2008
Produce more facts than you need to support your argument.
Do not pin-point the disagreement between you and your opponent.
Do not concentrate enough on identifying the fallacies of your opponent
Spend more time on expanding your ideology, and give time for your opponent to criticize you on facts not necessary for the debate.
Give occasion for your opponent to further generalize your ideology and call you names. The opponent will sign off the debate saying you are a lunatic.
A debate is just like a boxing match. It is not about how strong you pull your punches, but about your timing and your accuracy in hitting. The right wing debates by seasoned arguments worthy of a lawyer. The left wing responds by sheer panic.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:23 pm
08 Sep 2008
If you think anyone can "win" this "debate" with Saluki, you're mistaken about what is actually taking place here. You can't (generally) use logic or arguments to change the perspective of one who is more conservative in views, into one who is more liberal. You can't change a Republican into a Democrat using any given logic or debate. "Logical, linear" people might think you can, but that's a fallacy. In other words, there isn't a way to convince anyone to "do the right, sensible" thing just by talking about it. You haven't figured this out yet? People are more complex than this.
This is not (largely) a debate about facts. This is a discussion about different ways of seeing, and interacting with, the world. It's certainly not a boxing match. Saluki and others with similar views will change their minds over time, but not through debates like this. But it does help to introduce them to other perspectives... and that's about the most we can hope for.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:16 pm
08 Sep 2008
I have no presumptions that we can change a Saluki into a liberal just by talking to her/him. But if we argue in the proper manner, we can atleast win the argument. We should pin-point the fallacies in her/his statements and nail them down. Once we are on the winning side, the objective should be to finish the battle. Not to prolong it by discussing all and sundry.
Unlike others of their ilk (mreinbold etc), Saluki is a smart person and uses the art of debate/rhetoric very effectively. It is very nice to have Saluki on these boards, and we should use her/him effectively as a case-study of how we can win the arguments over our opponents.
There are several people who are neutral and who are uninformed. Though we cannot ever convert Saluki to our camp, we can atleast convert such guys as who are following this debate silently.
(I am also addressing amazingdrx, russ, caniscandida and a lot of other people who are participating in this debate. Earlier to me, Karsten made a similar point.)
.. vakibs
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:49 pm
08 Sep 2008
If you think you can win a particular aspect of the debate with Saluki, go right ahead. However, I don't think you'll be successful, because the debate is not largely about facts, it's about opinions, future planning, political beliefs and analyses of the capabilities of certain personalities (like Palin).
I haven't seen you be successful yet in arguing many of your points here with other Grist regulars. While you do have agreement on many items, there is also considerable disagreement on other points. It's not that you're "losing" the debate or debating poorly, it's just that others have a different belief system.
But heck, if you believe otherwise, by all means, jump right in and have a go at it with Saluki.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:20 pm
08 Sep 2008
I really like the way you debate. I remember you had trouble with amazingdrx over your support for biomass. I had my own share of troubles with my support for nuclear.
But the thing is, all these things aside, we share a common concern for the environment. So I really like to see you guys win. Please take my comments as words of encouragement.
You have already rebutted all the arguments of Saluki. The thing to do is to make your point explicit, get Saluki to acknowledge the point, and then sign off the debate. I agree with you that we cannot ever change Saluki's belief system. So why bother with all the additional information about Palin, conservatism, pit-bulls, nuclear energy, so on.. ?
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:49 pm
08 Sep 2008
Thanks for your comments. I understand your point.
There's a saying something like, "we don't want to win the battle, but lose the war."
I'm not as interested in getting someone like Saluki to agree to a specific point or accept defeat with a given argument as I am in helping her consider a very different perspective and orientation to the world. People like Saluki need help in understanding why other people (like you and I) have the concerns we do. She is capable of understanding specific points or facts, but incapable of accepting the fundamental flaws in her world view.
Again, it's like the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Plenty of Republicans have the intelligence to understand specific facts that may run contrary to what they think, but this doesn't mean they'll make any change in position... especially if that change would require a fundamental reconsideration of their perspective on the world and human issues. They have a better chance of deep change by being introduced to completely new and different perspectives, AND by seeing how others can debate fairly and calmly and with integrity... something they can at least respect. If all of us just use name calling and other degrading tactics, they can then fairly call us loonies or eco-freaks or whatever. I'm trying to show Saluki it is possible to have a very different perspective, but still act with civility and some respectable level of intelligence.
The most I can hope for is to plant a seed in her... and let the seed grow slowly over time.
Richard
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:45 am
09 Sep 2008
Again, it's like the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Plenty of Democrats have the intelligence to understand specific facts that may run contrary to what they think, but this doesn't mean they'll make any change in position... especially if that change would require a fundamental reconsideration of their perspective on the world and human issues.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:04 am
09 Sep 2008
It is possible Oil-Tech will eventually be successful in producing oil from shale at a cost competitive price. I'll give you that. But it's equally possible they won't.
Given that they have already produced oil from shale from their pilot plant they have a pretty good idea that it will work. Additionally, they at one time had a presentation paper on the web that was presented to the US Senate regarding their technology. The paper included viability, cost, environmental impact, as well as a detailed explanation of how the technology works. It was quite impressive. Unfortunately I am no longer able to find that paper on the net. So you can choose to believe me or not. In any case, their design is not particularly high tech in any of it's parts. It's just the unique way that they combine existing technology that gets them their results.
In addition, I have a friend that works for the EPA, and he tells me that he has already issued liscenses for 9 other shale oil pilot projects for both large and small companies.
One of the biggest costs that we will have with producing shale oil is in the mining of the materials. But by looking at the methods and economies of scale that were achieve with canadian sand oil, we can get a very good estimate of what it will cost.
If you look at the Oil Tech estimates for their technology, even if they were wrong by a factor of 5, their method would still produce oil economically as long as it is over 100 per barrel.
"However, I want you to look at how strongly your own personal views cloud your judgment."
I'm really hoping that you can eventually get away from these kinds of approaches that are dependent upon your own clouded judgement.
"A substantial part of your argument (as I've read from previous posts of yours) for continuing to use oil is that we have vast quantities available through oil shale. You then go on to say we shouldn't rely on renewables because "they are too costly and unreliable". Yet, you would place your bets on oil shale that we have far less data on, in terms of final costs and reliability."
Here is your mistake. The data that we have on renewables shows that they are costly and unreliable. The data that we have on shale oil does not show this. Look, shale oil isn't a pipe dream. Pilot plants have been built. Technologies have been tested. Oil has been extracted. The only thing that isn't tested is the economies of scale that will be achieved. But even if there is significant error in those numbers, it will still be economic.
"Obviously, we know far more about the reliability and costs of renewables than oil-to-shale technology."
Yes, we know that renewables are unreliable and costly.
"It takes just a little common sense to realize that it's a safer bet to use technologies that do not disrupt natural systems, rather than those that do."
Then you should be supporting nuclear instead of windmills dotting the landscape, killing bats and birds, making people and animals sick with low frequency noise.
"inherently feels like a bad idea. Something deep inside me says "no.... find a better way"."
Yes, you use this theme all of the time. It's about how it feels to you instead of being about the facts.
"On a more technical level, the likelihood that we can't overcome the reliability issues with wind or solar is incredibly low."
Fine. When we do we can use it. Of course with wind there are more than just reliablility issues. There are health and environmental issues. And with both there are the issues of the backup systems that we will need to pay for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.
"We can make nuclear more reliable than wind or solar?"
It already is. Why would you think otherwise?
"You do realize that sooner or later one or perhaps many nuclear facilities will be destroyed by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or some other natural or man-made disasters."
Obviously you wouldn't build a nuclear reactor on an earthquake fault zone. Hurricanes and toranadoes will not effect reactors. The worst that could possibly happen would be to collapse the cooling towers. In that case you simply shut the reacters down. No big deal. Your scenarios are simply not credible.
"What will be the effects of that?"
Nothing. Modern designs are able to shutdown and safe a nuclear reactor in fractions of a second. The French have been getting 80% of their power from nuclear reactors with mid level technology that are not as safe as the new generation reactors we would be building. And obviously the French have had no problems.
"My intuition says it's not worth finding out, given that there are other alternatives. "
There you go with your intuition again instead of relying of the facts.
"I noticed you left biomass out of your list of renewables."
I din't think that you still considered it as viable. It has two major drawbacks. 1. It uses land that we can use for food. In fact, the production of biofuels has already raised food prices around the world. 2. The Brazilians are running their cars on biofuels, and the fact that they are cutting down the rain forests to produce the fuel has a net effect of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"As someone who has made it a point to study human nature for some 35 or so years, I've noticed that any woman (or man, for that matter) who would compare herself to a pit bull is not someone I would ever consider giving any power to."
Good lord Richard, it's a self deprecating joke. Everyone that she has worked with in Alaska has loved her. She asks to be called Sarah instead of Governor. Everyone talks about how accessible and non politcal she is. This is people that she has worked with for years. She has an 80% approval rating for christ sake. Do you know of any other politician with that kind of approval rating. Our congress has a rating in the teens. Come on Richard - get real for 5 seconds.
"I would just consider her untrustable and in need of psychological help."
When you come to conclusions like that based upon a joke, I believe that it is you who needs the psychological help Richard.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 am
09 Sep 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/9/8/105456/3788
Good work! You are re-energizing the anti-Palin/McCain forces. Please keep it going.
ps. Many of us here remember our philosophy 101 section on informal fallacies as well as you do.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:48 am
09 Sep 2008
You do realize, the longer you continue with this debate, the less credibility you have. I know you can't see that because you're so convinced you have answers for all the questions. But that's really just delusional thinking.
I'll work with many of your responses, one by one.
1. You justify Ms. Palin's credibility by her high approval rate in a state with a low population, far off the beaten track. I believe Mr. Bush had an approval rating at one time well over 60%. Need I remind you of his rating now? But then, you did say you would have voted for George if you could have... even now, given his history. Again, I'm not going to attempt to change your mind about this. I'm simply pointing out that, given this position of yours, you have no credibility here or with me. But that's just my opinion.
I will make a prediction. Sarah Palin will come crashing down (in a very big way) before the election. This is not something you need to argue with, Saluki. Let's just watch and see. If I'm correct, you can come back here and ask me how I knew it would be so.
2. Obviously, you know nothing about biomass energy. That sounds about right, as you seem sold only on dirty, non-renewable, dangerous and/or centralized energy systems.
The two points you made about biomass are completely irrelevant. Biomass energy in the U.S. (we are talking about the U.S., Saluki, in our discussions) has nothing to do with displacing farm land or cutting down rain forests. We are talking about using wood from existing forests and planting non cropland acreage to fast growing trees... all using technology we've been using for 30 or more years.
Saluki... when you don't have a clue what you're talking about, it's better to ask questions first, rather than make statements that demonstrate ignorance.
As I said, we can create the equivalent energy from 200 nuclear power plants using this technology. It has every possible advantage over oil shale but one: it can't be controlled by a handful of oil companies. But perhaps you believe centralized control by monopolies is a good thing. That would seem to fit into your mindset.
That you put more reliance on facts than on intuition is actually your greatest downfall and the place where you need to grow the most. Again, not something I can argue with, but something all the world's wisest people (including some of the smartest, like Einstein) seem to recognize. You'll understand someday.
I won't argue with you about the safety of nuclear facilities, as it's not my area of expertise. But my intuition (yes, there I go again) tells me one or more of these facilities will have major problems over the next 20 years. Perhaps someone else can document the potential dangers here with documented facts. My point is, why take the risk of the danger from a natural disaster or from terrorists potentially using the materials or from our inability to safely dispose of the waste, when there are better alternatives.... like biomass (and solar and wind and geothermal...)?
Your arguments against using wind and solar because of a lack of reliability are completely groundless. Sure, there are still issues to be worked out to make these technologies 100% reliable, but that's true of nuclear as well (if you take into account the three points I mentioned above). Advanced countries throughout Europe and elsewhere are employing wind and solar at a furious pace. You think they are all making poor bets on unreliable technology? Come on, Saluki. No one takes an assertion like that seriously. You're digging a hole for yourself.
Finally, your statements about Oil-Tech remain hypothetical at best. When, and if, it becomes commercial on a significant scale, we can revisit the issue then. Until then, it is simply a possibility full of great risk: damage to natural areas; water usage; disposal of waste materials; and potentially unforeseen impacts resulting from such intense disruption of natural systems. You'll find few supporters here at Grist for this technology, and no arguments of yours will change anyone's views here... so stop wasting your time.
Saluki... I think it's time for you to leave. This is just my opinion, but at this point, you are wasting your time and certainly mine... and probably that of many others. Why stay? What do you expect to gain?
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:51 am
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:28 am
09 Sep 2008
While I find it close to uncivilized to continue with technologies that create waste that is toxic to humans, I am convinced we will use every shred of fossil fuel we can find before we change planet-wide. Once we have no choice anymore we will begin using clean fuels and (more importantly) consume less of everything. I certainly hope that we will be ready for the time we run out of affordable, dirty energy. The development of renewable energies needs to be pushed for that reason alone. Of course, there seems to be little time to enjoy following old ways. I believe it is a matter of convenience (or lack of human rights) that too many people don't change. It is sad to have to watch this, but maybe we are not made to survive on this planet. We have developed technological abilities that are way beyond our abilities to handle them responsibly. In a way I have no doubt that I cannot handle a collapse of our society while those who did little to prevent it may make it. It will be a different kind of human being that populates the world in 200 years.
In any case, a person who brings forward so many technical arguments should not be asked to leave. This person, as inconvenient his/her points of view are, contributes to a debate we need to have. Are the statement presented right or are they not? If wrong, educate us with facts. If right, let us adjust our thinking or bring forward better data. The same debates will occur in many other places. If this is practice - we did not do so well.
By my gut feeling, Saluki brought forward technical arguments and asked valid questions, was told he will never change his/her mind, and was asked to leave the room. Sounds pretty weak to me. And please forgive me if I say this without having followed each and every conversation here. My perception is based on diagonal reading. The majority listens not very well either. Those gut feelings are based on what was heard and shape decisions.
Just reporting on how it "feels". Work with it if you want to win debates in the mainstream of the USA.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:30 am
09 Sep 2008
While I find it close to uncivilized to continue with technologies that create waste that is toxic to humans, I am convinced we will use every shred of fossil fuel we can find before we change planet-wide. Once we have no choice anymore we will begin using clean fuels and (more importantly) consume less of everything. I certainly hope that we will be ready for the time we run out of affordable, dirty energy. The development of renewable energies needs to be pushed for that reason alone. Of course, there seems to be little time to enjoy following old ways. I believe it is a matter of convenience (or lack of human rights) that too many people don't change. It is sad to have to watch this, but maybe we are not made to survive on this planet. We have developed technological abilities that are way beyond our abilities to handle them responsibly. In a way I have no doubt that I cannot handle a collapse of our society while those who did little to prevent it may make it. It will be a different kind of human being that populates the world in 200 years.
In any case, a person who brings forward so many technical arguments should not be asked to leave. This person, as inconvenient his/her points of view are, contributes to a debate we need to have. Are the statement presented right or are they not? If wrong, educate us with facts. If right, let us adjust our thinking or bring forward better data. The same debates will occur in many other places. If this is practice - we did not do so well.
By my gut feeling, Saluki brought forward technical arguments and asked valid questions, was told he will never change his/her mind, and was asked to leave the room. Sounds pretty weak to me. And please forgive me if I say this without having followed each and every conversation here. My perception is based on diagonal reading. The majority listens not very well either. Those gut feelings are based on what was heard and shape decisions.
Just reporting on how it "feels". Work with it if you want to win debates in the mainstream of the USA.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:47 am
09 Sep 2008
"You do realize, the longer you continue with this debate, the less credibility you have."
I'm thinking that the longer it continues that the more people are finding out just how clueless you are.
"You justify Ms. Palin's credibility by her high approval rate in a state with a low population, far off the beaten track. "
It justifies far more than your idiotic psychoanalysis based upon one joke. I guess in your mind a politician must have a low approval rating to be trustworthy.
"I will make a prediction. Sarah Palin will come crashing down (in a very big way) before the election."
Apparently the Democratic National Comittee has sent 30 lawyers to blanket Alaska in an attempt to dig up dirt on Palin. Along with the left wing media people who are already there digging they are going to be standing in line for access to the public records. Of course they are going to poke a microphone in anyone and everyone's face, so I'm sure that they will be able to find someone who doesn't like Palin. The Democrats know that they can't win this election over the issues, so dirt is their only chance. Obama won his first and his third election by finding a way to get his opponents off the ticket. Twice he used that trick on fellow Democrats. He has ever actually won only one election in his life.
"We are talking about using wood from existing forests and planting non cropland acreage to fast growing trees... all using technology we've been using for 30 or more years."
So instead of blabbing on about biomass, why don't you provide some links, as I've done for you with shale oil. Making unsupported assertions seems to be the norm on this site. Are the eco cultists just too lazy? Are they used to preaching to the choir? Or are they simply lying and exaggerating? Probably all of the above.
"But perhaps you believe centralized control by monopolies is a good thing."
This is another area where you show your stupidity. If you are going to accuse someone of something at least know of some reasonable justification for such an accusation. Why in the hell would I believe in centralized control or monopolies - espcially since I have come out again and again for minimal government.
"Sure, there are still issues to be worked out to make these technologies 100% reliable, but that's true of nuclear as well (if you take into account the three points I mentioned above)."
The points mentioned above? Now you are going to use your intuition as support of an assertion about the unreliability of nuclear. As though you had actually demonstrated something by mentioning your intuition. With each post you turn yourself into a bigger nut case.
"Advanced countries throughout Europe and elsewhere are employing wind and solar at a furious pace."
Another stupid argument. They are employing these at a furious pace for two reasons. 1. They signed the Kyoto protocol which said that they must lower their CO2 output. 2. They are heavily subsidizing those projects with taxpayer money because private industry will not use them voluntarily.
"Finally, your statements about Oil-Tech remain hypothetical at best."
There is nothing hypothetical about the oil that Oil-Tech has already developed using their methods. They only thing that is hypothetical around here is your biomass idea.
"Saluki... I think it's time for you to leave. "
I understand that you resent being made to look like a fool. But hey, you didn't have to engage in the debate.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:48 am
09 Sep 2008
The debate with Saluki was long, in my opinion, and covered plenty of ground. You ask "if the statements presented were right or wrong", as if all statements have a right or wrong answer. They don't. Most of the important questions of our time don't have "right or wrong" answers. The "right" answer is the one that fits a person at any given time.
Is religion right or wrong?
Which religion is right or wrong?
When does a soul enter the fetus?
Is there such a thing as a soul?
Can you prove (unequivocally) that global warming exists as a result, primarily, of man-made contributions?
Can you prove we are worse or better off using cheap, but dirty, fossil fuels?
Can you demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that wind energy is reliable and without significant harm?
Can you demonstrate nuclear waste presents a problem greater than the benefits of the large-scale, (relatively) cheap energy it yields?
This list is very long, and I don't think anyone here can change Saluki's mind on virtually any one of these items in any meaningful way. She's not here to be educated. She's here to point out why you are loony. Have you seen one bit of movement on her part yet?
But this is just my opinion. Like I said to Vakibs, jump in any time and engage her yourself. I stated it was only my opinion the debate had run its course, but I hold no weight at Grist.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:00 am
09 Sep 2008
"Idiotic psychoanalysis", "stupidity", "nut case"... this is what Saluki's debating skills degrade into. It's not something I have much patience for... and it's certainly not a sign of tolerance or wisdom.
All that aside, her arguments this last time around were weaker than ever. I'm happy to continue pointing out the flaws, if anyone is interested. But as I've said numerous times, she's not going to change her mind on anything.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:17 am
09 Sep 2008
I have never been more certain we'll come out the other side of this in the next 10-20 years and put an end to the destructive ways Saluki promotes. Just keep on pushing ahead and promoting what you believe is healthy, balanced, fair and responsible.
The overall thrust of ideas here at Grist represents the future. You just have to know inside it's worth the battle and will work out in the end.
Richard
Permalink
hapa Posted 8:11 am
09 Sep 2008
earlier this year TOD ran (what i thought was) a great series on energy-return-on-(energy)-investment, or "net energy." here's the one about oil sands and oil shale.
AS A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EXPECT, the reason oil shale isn't the top energy source in the world today is that it isn't cheap, it isn't easy, it isn't clean, and it isn't fast to market.
this is why oil-tech's breakthrough technology is being promoted mostly by a press release and an electioneer and not by former peak-oil experts whose lives were changed when they read the pamphlet.
the biggest issue the article raises about OT's machinery, though, apart from water inputs and waste in the watershed -- a double-whammy mountain state people are supposedly thinking about? -- is,
A problem that is obvious from the data is that shale oil is always waiting for oil to reach a given price level at which point it will become economic. But as that price is reached and surpassed (even over time by a factor of ten) it remains uncompetitive because the cost of the extraction and processing has increased (Hall et al. 1986). The problem here as with many other alternatives to what we do today, is that as the price of oil (or fossil fuels more generally increases so does the price of everything made directly or indirectly with oil, which is essentially everything from steel to chemicals to water to labor.
this points to why the big boys haven't jumped at the chance.
but if i were advising someone who actually made decisions in the affected area, concerning the chance of becoming the next alaska, for instance, i would show them this:
In the U.S., a large-scale commercial oil shale operation could have a significant impact on any nearby communities, the extent of which depends on the existing infrastructures and many other factors. As such, in a case where shale oil development overlaps an area with increasing tourism and recreation opportunities and an expanding urban population, on top of this existing network of energy development and changing land uses it is likely to put much more pressure on an already fragile ecosystem and public temperament (Committee on Resources 2005). An important issue is that most oil shales exist in areas very far from any infrastructure (housing, water, schools and so on) so that either very large daily transportation would be needed or whole new towns would need to be constructed.
op-por-tu-ni-ty cosssss-t.
my take from the article is that -- oh, wait, i don't have to say anything more, joe romm crushed this, stomped on it, and lay it in its grave just a few weeks ago.
Permalink
saluki Posted 8:19 am
09 Sep 2008
"Agnostic eyyh saluki, well that's very different then, nevermind."
Probably not a subject worth discussing. But Richard is back to 100% psychobabble that doesn't interest me and I have a couple of minutes.
No, I'm not agnostic. I'm non religious.
My feeling is that any time spirituality becomes organized it becomes corrupted. You may have the same opinion, but there the agreement will probably end.
You are anti-religious. I am not. My feeling is that anyone can believe in anything they want regardless of how irrational I think it is as long as they don't feel the need to force it on others. I will accept their attempts at persuation, but no more.
You believe that religious people are stupid. I do not. This is a tough one because the first question that comes to mind is, "How can intelligent people have stupid believes?" I don't know the answer to that one. But I have seen way too many very intelligent people that accepted some very unintelligent religious dogma. I have to think that they are capable of compartmentalizing their lives in such a way that they never actually turn their insight, intelligence and reason on their own believe systems, because if they did, their believe systems would quickly crumble.
I'm not an agnosic because I have a set of philosophic/spiritual concepts that deal with the whole god idea in a way that is satisfactory to me. I would probably have to rant on for a whole books worth to explain what that is, but you can get a very rough ballpark idea by reading Alan Watts. Also, I have no particular inclination to convert anyone, so what would be the point of talking about it.
Now you have a whole new arsenal of information to attack me with. Have fun.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:09 pm
09 Sep 2008
Good paper. I'm happy to have someone bring something substantive to the table to talk about. The paper contained a lot of information people should look into. Unfortunately it also contained a few things that were simple handwaving and one or two things where I felt like he pulled it out of his backside.
Basically you are starting with one of those.
"A problem that is obvious from the data is that shale oil is always waiting for oil to reach a given price level at which point it will become economic. But as that price is reached and surpassed (even over time by a factor of ten) it remains uncompetitive because the cost of the extraction and processing has increased (Hall et al. 1986). The problem here as with many other alternatives to what we do today, is that as the price of oil (or fossil fuels more generally increases so does the price of everything made directly or indirectly with oil, which is essentially everything from steel to chemicals to water to labor."
This is pure nonsense. The last time that an effort was made to use shale oil commercially, in the 1980s the cost of extraction was found to be about $35 per barrel. At that time middle eastern oil got as low as $10 per barrel. Now the cost of extraction is between $10 and $30 per barrel and the cost of oil has gotten as high as $140. So the cost hasn't risen, it's actually gone down. Adjusting for inflation, it has gone down even more.
There are two other differences between now and the 80s that are also important.
World oil production is near it's peak - meaning that prices are likely to rise faster than production costs.
Shale oil technology is far more advanced than it was in the 80s.
Then your report goes on like this:
"In the U.S., a large-scale commercial oil shale operation could have a significant impact on any nearby communities, the extent of which depends on the existing infrastructures and many other factors. As such, in a case where shale oil development overlaps an area with increasing tourism and recreation opportunities and an expanding urban population, on top of this existing network of energy development and changing land uses it is likely to put much more pressure on an already fragile ecosystem and public temperament (Committee on Resources 2005). An important issue is that most oil shales exist in areas very far from any infrastructure (housing, water, schools and so on) so that either very large daily transportation would be needed or whole new towns would need to be constructed."
That's a whole bunch of generalizations without getting into particulars. So let's get into the particulars. Here is a site that contains a map of where the shale oil is:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publicatio ...
I'm most failiar with Colorado, so I'll speak to that.
First comes the tourism industry. In Colorado it revolves around the mountains and ski areas. The Piceance Basin reserves do not have ski areas and they do not have tourism nearby.
The area has no major urban centers nearby.
The closest city is Rifle - population 9,000. Rifle is right on interstate 70 - meaning that the transportation infastructure is close by. The trip from Rifle to the basin is a short one, meaning that the access infastructure would be short. People working on the projects could probaly live in Rifle and commute to work. Their families would live in Rifle and their kids would go to school there. The town would undoubtedly have an economic boom.
Now, concerning the quality of the land and what would happen to it, you should probably read this article.
"You won't think much of Rio Blanco County if you ever drive through it. In fact, unless you take a right turn off Interstate-70 West at Rifle, head north on Railroad Avenue and then west on Government road to Colorado state highway number thirteen, odds are you'll never even step foot in Rio Blanco County. But even if you keep heading west toward Grand Junction, through the town of Parachute and the shuttered oil shale refineries from the 1970s, you'll see the Book Cliffs geologic formation on your right. For miles and miles. It's a bleak landscape. Almost lunar. At first glance, it's the kind of land you'd never want to explore, much less settle down in."
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html
The Oil Tech technology uses very little water because it never turns the mined product into a slurry. The biggest water use will be by the people working there. As you can see, the Colorado River also runs through Rifle. So water for the workes and the families should not be a problem. Some water will have to be shipped to the sites - but that should be a very small amount.
Now, let's get on to the energy efficiency of the Oil Tech method. Electricity would have to be used to heat the Kerogen the first time that the retort is filled. But after the Kerogen has been extracted, it still contains enough energy to burn. Oil Tech will use the spent shale and burn it to heat the retort that is then filled with more shale. So after the first batch, electricity will not be needed for the heating process, because each load that has had it's Kerogen extracted will then be used to heat the next incomming load. Further efficiencies are also possible. The burned out mass of shale that was used will still be at an extremely high temperature. It can be used to produce steam, and the steam can be used to drive a generator. So the site can be electrically self sufficient, or it can even supply electricity to nearby towns. At the completion of the process, the spent shale is inert and can be returned to the area from which it was mined. There is a 30% expansion of volumn that results from the extraction process, so if you are mining a 50 foot depth of shale, you would return 80 feet of material.
Hope that covers most of your issues.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:18 pm
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:34 pm
09 Sep 2008
yup. sounds cheap.
Now the cost of extraction is between $10 and $30 per barrel and the cost of oil has gotten as high as $140.
this is wrong. you're using 2005 extraction costs and 2008 market price. go get the right numbers and come back when you're ready.
So the cost hasn't risen, it's actually gone down. Adjusting for inflation, it has gone down even more.
how true! and if you could buy your house at today's price and sell it back in 2005, you'd be rich!
go get the real number.
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:44 pm
09 Sep 2008
as for how the land is being used now, i hope you'll understand, i don't take the advice of libertarians in economic heat about how to manage open space.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:45 pm
09 Sep 2008
Oh, my, aren't we being petty. Okay, add 4% per year inflation costs. Hell, add 8% if it makes you happy. You still end up with an extraction price that makes it extremely attactive.
"how true! and if you could buy your house at today's price and sell it back in 2005, you'd be rich!"
How is this relevant to the extraction costs?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:39 pm
09 Sep 2008
And no of course I don't believe all religious people are stupid.
But these rapture/armageddon folk? Be honest, doesn't the thought of one of them in the most powerful job on the planet make you pause?
This is a world that needs an understanding of science and reason to lead. Palin is out of consideration on those grounds alone.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
hapa Posted 1:45 pm
09 Sep 2008
The problem here as with many other alternatives to what we do today, is that as the price of oil (or fossil fuels more generally increases so does the price of everything made directly or indirectly with oil, which is essentially everything from steel to chemicals to water to labor.
you called that "pure nonsense," then basically repeated it, asking,
How is this relevant to the extraction costs?
let's run through this.
the inflation rate for energy from 2005 to now -- which is down from peak, probably temporarily -- is not 8%. it is, from 2005, for transport, trickling down to things that get transported, something like 20%.
similarly we have seen big increases in the cost of industrial raw materials, and you're talking about building a giant industry from scratch. so what i'm asking you to do is not petty. it is exactly the same thing that the nuclear industry people have to do and the wind industry people have to do.
i actually don't think you can give me this information. so far you've demanded other people do your homework and your own supplied sources have been junk.
plus, how will the credit crisis and demand destruction affect those costs in the future? or maybe they'll only hit other people's favorite industries. that's always nice.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:10 pm
09 Sep 2008
Of course it is. Slap 20% on the $10 to $30 and it's still economical. The added transportation cost is a fraction of the total cost, but go ahead and add 20% to the total. The answer is the same. Project a cost increase over the next few years as the thing is being built. But also project an increase in oil prices. With global oil production near it's limit and with demand continuing to ramp up steeply, chances are that future increases in the cost of oil will outrun future increases in cost of production.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:14 pm
09 Sep 2008
But it's a huge weak point too. Lavishing detailed points on basically flawed resoning doesn't help reach any conclusion that anyone will follow.
Break down shale oil, or any of the other supposedly huge sources of continued gas guzzling she is using to support one simple slogan, namely "drill, drill, drill, baby, drill", Palon/McCain's whole energy plan; and you are left with what?
Gas that keeps on soaring in price. Wrecking our economy. Even without the huge GHG problem, another Palin talking point (she doesn't believe in human caused global warming), there is the economic problem with extracting fuel from rocks, sand, deep offshore, foreign oil with oil wars, and so forth... we just can't afford it.
It all starts with the idea of making excuses stick for Bush and Palin/McCain nonsensical sloganeering substituted for real policy. WMD, mushroom clouds, islamist enemies, pure rovian bunk.
She's good at sophistry, a good lawyer you might suspect. But with a very bad case. Defendants that just can't be defended.
Anyway I enjoy the challenge and it energizes the battle against the talking point bumpersticker politics. And she is entertaining in some respects, though her over long presentations are not to my liking.
Get to the point I say. That is more fun! Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:23 pm
09 Sep 2008
"I'm spiritual, mainly based on nature."
In my mind everything is nature - including man and what he does.
"But these rapture/armageddon folk? Be honest, doesn't the thought of one of them in the most powerful job on the planet make you pause?"
I don't think that Palin is a rapture or armageddon type. If I thought she were it would make me pause. So far her judgements as a Governor look fairly sound; and she hasn't given any indication of pushing her religion on others.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:33 pm
09 Sep 2008
ESTHER KAPLAN: Well, I think that it goes far beyond the one church that you mentioned. There's actually four churches that Palin's been affiliated with since childhood and into the present. She changed churches when she began to run for statewide office back in '02. And all four of the pastors at all four of these churches indicate that they follow a very strictly Christian fundamentalist, biblical literalist line. At least three of them are on record with "end times" beliefs....
One of the things that I find sort of more indicative even is that last winter a state rep from Wasilla was indicted and ultimately convicted on bribery and other charges, and she replaced him with an elder from her church. And what this guy has done since he's been state rep is to sponsor a bill making late-term abortions a felony in the Alaska state legislature. He's been working very hard to get intelligent design taught in Alaska's public schools. This is actually one of the clearest indications of where she stands and how she sees the role of the Bible in public life.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:35 pm
09 Sep 2008
Ok Obama had a crazy preacher in his church too. But he wasn't onstage with the guy preaching rapture.
And she is praying for the natural gas pipeline deal in church. You either pause on that stuff or admit you are divorcing from reality in order to attain a political win.
Video is believing.. now where did I put that link, hmmm? Oh yeah it's up the thread a ways.
BTW I do enjoy your contributions here anyway, even though I did join in the teasing about trollishness. Sorry, but it's kind of like fraternity hazing, hehey.
I'll admit you are probably smarter than me anyway. That ought to be some consolation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 2:42 pm
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:47 pm
09 Sep 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:51 pm
09 Sep 2008
One of the critical breakthroughs of Shell's process is that it heats the shale in the ground slowly -- over a period of about three years -- using dozens of giant heating elements, each almost 2,000 feet long.
The area where the shale is being heated is surrounded by a perimeter made up of a 3-foot-thick wall of ice, created by circulating aqueous ammonia into deep wells for a year and a half.
Both processes take enormous amounts of electricity. At an ongoing freeze-wall test site west of Rifle, giant freezers the size of semitrailers run 24 hours a day -- and even that's a far smaller version of what a commercial site would look like.
But the process does create other problems. New power plants to feed the system would probably spew lots of carbon. And the refineries that analysts believe would need to be built nearby to process the liquids could contaminate the air.
But the biggest impact may be on water. Rand estimates that it would take three barrels of water to produce one barrel of shale oil. Although that's significantly less than the amount of water needed to produce a barrel of ethanol, the water would come from the relatively scarce resources of the semi-arid Western Slope, some of which also feeds the Front Range.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:02 pm
09 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:06 pm
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:21 pm
09 Sep 2008
All of this would require a huge source of electrical power that doesn't exist right now meaning a massive coal-burning plant. With no water source in Western Colorado for any of this that isn't spoken for already. You could do that somewhere it rains.
The weird thing is if you inject steam into any carbon source you get syngas which you can reformulate into the liquid fuel of your choice, ethanol, DME or butanol if you want. That has to be easier in low grade coal seams than this hokey idea.
Yep. Googel reveals several patents for in-situ coal bed gasification and what looks like some pilot projects.
So this whole "we have lots of oil-shale" business is simply a means of telling people they have oil reserves when they don't really. Propaganda.
We could have ham and eggs if we had any ham. Or eggs.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:40 pm
09 Sep 2008
Thanks to Saluki (sorry for misspelling his/her name earlier) for his/her (typically logodiarrheic, presumably pay-by-word) comment.
It should be noted that mere "employment" by the oil companies of Native Alaskans is not a satisfactory recompense for the destruction of land and biodiversity, as the Gwich'in elder Sarah James has said to Grist and to Peter Mathiessen (and elsewhere), and as other Native Alaskans have said too.
The (unrelated) Inupiat (northwesternmost Inuit), of the coast of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, have indeed found employment, sometimes, with the oil companies. But such wealth as they have got from that employment has not done them much good, as they have recognized.
Dignity counts for something; wholesome society counts for something; tradition counts for something. Cf. Seth Kantner's "Ordinary Wolves" (with acknowledgment, yet again, to Gristmill's Erik Hoffner).
Saluki's assertion that Alaskan oil goes to the West Coast of the US and is distributed to US consumers may very well be accurate, for all I know; but it contradicts everything that the mainstream media say about it, which is that the oil goes to Asian markets. Surely the truth is easily discoverable in this case.
Similarly, my own assertion, that any oil sucked up within US territory will be sold by the oil companies to the highest bidder, from anywhere, is also supported by the general feeling of the mainstream media -- the truth of which is also easily discoverable.
Still, to my knowledge, there is NO law now standing, nor in planning, that would command that oil extracted within US territory MUST be distributed to US consumers first and foremost (and maybe exclusively). But that is the obvious implication of a regime following the unfortunate battle slogan "Drill Here, Drill Now."
And in that context, I playfully used a bit of rhetoric to suggest that for McCain/Palin to make such a demand on the oil companies is reminiscent of Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist communist collectivism -- for which people on the right tend to find little good to say. Being a Roman Catholic with ancient roots, and a fervent love of the value of the common good, I must acknowledge that our US right-wingists' Puritanical Calvinist scorn of "collectivism" sends me flying through the roof. ("Damn those [inconvenient] witches [next door] to hell! They must burn!")
On animals in trouble: I hope to God I shall never shrink from defending them, their welfare, and their rights, such as I may -- and get out of the way, ye "bullshit"-throwers, German or otherwise.
No one has yet brought to our attention an animal-friendly story about Sarah Palin. I stand by my assertion that she is a wildlife-hater. I do not know enough yet to say that she is altogether an animal-hater in general. I very much hope she is not. I await good news (still!) on that front.
In fairness, I quoted some time ago something from the lips of Barack Obama, oldish, when he was visiting some carnivorous fair (killed pigs?; killed cows?) in southern Illinois, and he said something to the effect of, "Don't worry, none of us are vegetarians." Yuck and double yuck.
When I was visiting cattle-ranchers in Montana, they knew of my vegetarian sentiments, and the lady of the house prepared excellent vegetarian delicacies when I visited them, accompanying the Catholic pastor of the town (Poplar, MT).
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:42 pm
09 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 8:47 pm
09 Sep 2008
I think you understand that being smart, in and of itself, is the single leading cause of the problems we have in the world today. I can assure you Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are very smart, to give two examples, as are countless other politicians, scientists and business people. But being smart without being "conscious" (if you understand my use of that term) leads to abuse of power, control over others, and misuse of resources.
There isn't any direct path from being smart to being conscious, either. The two are not really connected.
I'd rely on a less intelligent, but highly conscious person, every time because that person will seek out "smarts" from others and filter the information through their own compassion, intuition, wisdom, tolerance and balance to create solutions that work across the board. This is the path ahead.
I see no indication Sarah Palin or John McCain are conscious people. Smart yes... conscious, no.
And yes, Saluki... this is just more of my psychobabble, so pay no attention to it.
Richard
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:57 pm
09 Sep 2008
But of course the human beings whom it destroys are precisely the ones who do not count, i.e. Native Americans -- historically and plainly.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:17 pm
09 Sep 2008
But something being possible doesn't mean it is the optimal choice. Shale oil is point blank stupid - very low EROEI, very high environmental impact, very large quantities of waste, and finally, a very stupid way of burning a very finite resource.
This is even before you consider the problems of global warming.
Shale oil will be totally unattractive in a future market driven by solar and nuclear power, and in a society geared towards using energy efficiently. In such a society, shale oil will have no demand and it will be exorbitantly expensive.
@Saluki
As environmentalists, this is our bone of contention with you Saluki. When we make policy decisions, we don't make them for now, but for the future. We don't care about the distorted prices dictated by a fossil fuel economy. There are a million ways of entering an energy rich economy. If you are not satisfied with solar power technologies, add in nuclear power. You have all the energy that you care for.
What we should care for are the environmental costs of any technology. Priced in these numbers, shale oil will be a big time loser.
If you cannot get over the idea of burning carbon based fuels in the internal combustion engines of your cars, use (a) bio fuels created out of agricultural waste - cheaper, lesser environmental impact (b) energy intensive algae cultivation powered by nuclear power - cheaper, lesser environmental impact. Both the above technologies are sustainable (unlike shale oil) and they are economically viable right now !
But you know, we guys on this forum don't stop over here. We continue to discuss about what are the optimal choices for producing and using energy.
Shale oil is right at the bottom on the list. Right along with liquid coal.
Even if you think you are smarter than 95% of the climatologists working all over the world and believe global warming is a hoax, you should not lobby for shale oil. Unless you are getting paid lots of money for doing this lobbying. In which case, you are wasting your time down here on grist.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:35 pm
09 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 11:15 pm
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:38 pm
09 Sep 2008
I think you understand that being smart, in and of itself, is the single leading cause of the problems we have in the world today. I can assure you Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are very smart, to give two examples, as are countless other politicians, scientists and business people. But being smart without being "conscious" (if you understand my use of that term) leads to abuse of power, control over others, and misuse of resources.
There isn't any direct path from being smart to being conscious, either. The two are not really connected.
I'd rely on a less intelligent, but highly conscious person, every time because that person will seek out "smarts" from others and filter the information through their own compassion, intuition, wisdom, tolerance and balance to create solutions that work across the board. This is the path ahead.
I see no indication Sarah Palin or John McCain are conscious people. Smart yes... conscious, no.
This is in substance, if not word for word, the mantra of every mind-hating, science-hating, education-hating flat-earth hillbilly.
Just substitute Democrat names, and you'd have something any Republican would happily agree with.
Substitute "Christian" or "patriotic" or "entrepreneurial" for the vague term "conscious" (probably some trendy concept like "emotional intelligence", just a pop culture update of what the ancients called wisdom, is what was meant), and you'd get even more agreement.
Yes, "smart" is the problem. Intelligence is the problem. Reason and logic are the problem. We certainly have a surplus of those!
I can agree that the kind of tactical intelligence a hack like Cheney or Rove possesses, really more a kind of animal cunning, has nothing to do with wisdom, but it also has nothing to do with true human intelligence, which necessarily involves real thinking on values and principles as well as means and ends, on the Why as well as the How.
Maybe what was meant here was closer to my meaning than I realize, but I can only go with what was written, and as written it's right-wing anti-intellectual dreck.
Coming from someone who's been giving lectures on how to express oneself, that's quite disreputable.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:51 pm
09 Sep 2008
Und Wer werde uns davon tadeln?
But do they in fact have a word for "playful" in German? "Spielleicht"? In italiano: "giocoso," "giocondo," "amusante," "divertente," "piacente," eccetera. Ma dei tedeschi non vogliamo dire piu'.
So please understand, dear Pollute, that every contribution to a conservation-related and/or energy-related thread in Grist/Gristmill which is NOT humorous is somehow too gloomily Parisian.
We need more Johann Strauss in unseren Leben, nicht wahr?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:14 am
10 Sep 2008
If you don't understand what I'm speaking about (such as my meaning for the word "conscious"), ASK. Stop flying off the handle on everything. My god, you need a sedative, dude. Calm down. Ask questions. Stop making huge, and often very wrong, assumptions.
I never said intelligence and smarts are not very useful. I simply said that they are dangerous without being balanced by other critical elements.
Calling me right wing puts you in the dog pound for the day. I'm so far left of you on numerous topics you couldn't find me if you had a telescope.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:34 am
10 Sep 2008
You are squandering a very important talking point when you say McCain and Palin are smart.
How many years did it take them to graduate from high school, and how many to graduate from college ? Seriously, they are smart, as in George W Bush smart.
The guys who are really cunning and smart (in an animal way, as put down by Russ) are the rightwing commentators such as Karl Rove, Will Cristol and so on.. The republican team is just a pair of puppets. The puppeteers are somebody else.
You can never win an argument against a right-wing person by pulling at their heartstrings. It is impossible. The only way to win is to expose their stupidity.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:22 am
10 Sep 2008
Calling me right wing puts you in the dog pound for the day. I'm so far left of you on numerous topics you couldn't find me if you had a telescope.
I'm inclined to doubt that, as some of my detractors around here could no doubt tell you.
Anyway, I'm not a "leftist". My world view can't be plotted on the standard ideological spectrum.
I think you understand that being smart, in and of itself, is the single leading cause of the problems we have in the world today.
I never said intelligence and smarts are not very useful. I simply said that they are dangerous without being balanced by other critical elements.
"Being smart in and of itself" is never dangerous and is never the cause of the world's problems.
If intelligence is enlisted in the cause of greed or bloodlust, then what causes the problem is the greed or bloodlust, not the intelligence.
What a slander.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 1:39 am
10 Sep 2008
What the heck is it with you? Calm down! Seriously, have you checked your blood pressure recently?
My goodness, I just asked you to stop making incorrect assumptions and jumping to wrong conclusions, and then you turn around and do it again!
Your statements exactly mirror and support my own. They don't counter what I said... they back mine up. We're on the same page here. Relax!
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:53 am
10 Sep 2008
How do you know?
"If you cannot get over the idea of burning carbon based fuels in the internal combustion engines of your cars, use (a) bio fuels created out of agricultural waste - cheaper,"
Can you show me that agricultural waste biofuel is cheaper or can you only assert it?
"In such a society, shale oil will have no demand and it will be exorbitantly expensive."
Shale oil is a higher quality of oil than sand oil. The cost of producing it will not be much greater than sand oil. Right now Canada produces a million barrels of sand oil a day and they sell it to the US. Their sand oil production is almost half of their total oil production. In 10 years it will probably be 75%. Given these facts I have no idea how you can conclude that shale oil will not be viable.
I have about 70,000 invested in the family vehicles. I'm not going to throw that away for a bunch of eco nuts. If meaningful, convenient and economic alternatives exist after I get my usage out of those vehicles, I might be willing to switch to something else. Right now the world has trillions invested in the internal combustion engine. And there are probably trillions more in infastructure to support it. Factories, filling stations, repair shops, people educated in repairing such vehicles, etc. etc. You are not going to get them to throw away all of that value either.
At least we can agree that nuclear is a good idea. I support a steady, even handed, program to start building the safest nuclear plants that we know how to build right now.
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:57 am
10 Sep 2008
All I did was read what you wrote.
Living in what is historically a know-nothing, anti-intellectual country, where in recent times that trait has reached monstrous proportions, I'm a little punchy on the subject.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:38 am
10 Sep 2008
Discussing on current costs is meaningless.
Most of the technologies that we are discussing will be a LOT cheaper when they achieve the economies of scale.
On the other hand, some of the technologies might face significant bottlenecks as they get bigger.
So, when you produce your most optimistic cost estimate, there will be no dearth of people that will counter it with their pie-in-the-sky estimate. The only middleground that we have when we are discussing the costs of any technology are the costs that we can measure right now - the environmental costs. The requirements on land, water, mining, waste disposal etc.. These can all be worked out for any technology in question. (I call them eco-dollars, as you can see from my signature).
When we are deciding on policies for our future, we should make a clear headed decision based on these estimates.
And yes, I stand by my statement that both the biofuel alternatives that I mentioned are cost-effective currently. (Astronomical gasolene prices make anything possible). You can google and learn more about them. I don't care too much about these technologies, because I place my bets on batteries and fuel-cell vehicles.
I have about 70,000 invested in the family vehicles. I'm not going to throw that away for a bunch of eco nuts. If meaningful, convenient and economic alternatives exist after I get my usage out of those vehicles, I might be willing to switch to something else.
To answer your fear, your investment on family vehicles will not go lost. These very vehicles can be retro-fitted to use electric drive. This investment, if spread over 10 years, will earn for itself in terms of avoided gasolene purchase.
Meaningful, convenient, economic alternatives : these exist right now. You have to follow the science and educate yourself on the trends. If you speak nicely, several bloggers here will educate you there.
Right now the world has trillions invested in the internal combustion engine.
No, it is not the "world" which has a trouble if gasolene driven ICEs disappear, but a few vested self interests. And even these people in question have nothing to lose, but a drop in future profits. Their strategies can be analyzed in terms of game theory; these people will keep promoting technologies that will prolong the dependence on oil, even though several brilliant alternatives exist.
Unlike what you might think, the free market will not choose the technologies optimal for the betterment of life, or the environment. The market forces have an inertia and they will not change course until the resource actually dries up (as is the case of oilman Pickens when he realized that he has no more oil to drill in his fields). Oil shale is a synonym for the inertia of big-oil.
But unfortunately for them, we live in a democratic society, and the entire population has a stake in the future, and a say in the choice of technologies. It will be a smart strategy for those vested self interests (read big-oil) to adjust their course and reinvest their money in green alternative energies. Otherwise, they will just miss the bus and somebody else will become rich. That is the magic of the real free market.
At least we can agree that nuclear is a good idea.
No, I think we still have a disagreement there. The nuclear industry is not exempt from the inertia disease which is troubling big-oil. It is placing its bets on 2nd generation nuclear reactors which use just 0.5% of the nuclear fuel. The technology we have is sufficiently advanced for breeder reactors which burn 99% of the fuel. With breeder reactors, just the nuclear "waste" that is piled up so far can fuel the entire world for several hundred years to come, with no need for further uranium mining. Why is the nuclear-industry not interested in developing breeder reactors then ? Inertia. Left to itself, it will do nothing until 60 years, that is until Uranium actually dries up on this planet.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 3:49 am
10 Sep 2008
I am worried that any German reading your last post would feel strange and wonder if there are anti-German tendencies present. It seems to be still used often to create guilt and gain advantage. No idea if this is intended. It could be plain humorous as well. Or the tactic of using humor to hide aggression and attack while protecting oneself from counterattack . I don't know you really.
The German word for playful is, aufpassen jetzt!,: "verspielt". One word is enough. Efficient. Like all(!) other German words.
Karsten
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:53 am
10 Sep 2008
"Anyway, I'm not a "leftist". My world view can't be plotted on the standard ideological spectrum."
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:54 am
10 Sep 2008
"Anyway, I'm not a "leftist". My world view can't be plotted on the standard ideological spectrum."
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:35 am
10 Sep 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:29 am
10 Sep 2008
No water use and no toxic tailings. The rock and sand stays underground and the oil comes up the pipe under heat and pressure. If it is piped right into a wind powered, heat pump powered refinery, you could have a very low GHG fuel.
But it's far wiser to simply use the wind electricty at 5 times the efficiency in plugin hybrids and electric freight rail and mass transit.
This might be worthwhile someday though, when oil demand is maybe 1/10 nth what it is now. And if oil reserves run out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 9:29 am
10 Sep 2008
"This might be worthwhile someday though, when oil demand is maybe 1/10 nth what it is now. And if oil reserves run out."
I can pretty much guarantee that shale oil is coming. With demand for oil outstripping supply, the prices are going to continue to rise quickly. As prices continue to rise the voters are going to get more and more pissed off about large unused sources. And they are going to vote anyone out of office that doesn't develop those sources. It's basically a stampede that the left wing politicians will be unable to resist. My take is that if they are really hard over on ANWR, that they make a trade. Keep ANWR but give up shale oil. Considering the amount of shale oil available, they could even use that excuse to retain their bans on off shore drilling. When you are in a position of loosing a queen, be grateful if you can turn it into the loss of only a bishop.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:59 am
10 Sep 2008
OPEC just cut production. This group does not have our best interests at heart. We need some real bargaining power.
The only way to get on top of this supply/demand equation anymoe is to incremenmrally cut demand, quarter after quarter, year after year.
Only switching away from oil to renewable electric transportation can insure that steady withdrawal from our ever more expensive oil addiction. These schemes to guzzle gas as usual are too expensive.
You can have your SUV, Amory Lovins has a great one, built with carbon fiber and a plugin hybrid drivetrain. It cuts gas consumption 80 to 90%.
As the general says to Mathew Modine's character in Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket", "why don't you get with the program and come on in for the big win with us", saluki? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 5:58 pm
10 Sep 2008
I can pretty much guarantee that shale oil is coming. With demand for oil outstripping supply, the prices are going to continue to rise quickly.
There is no inevitable here. The oil industry is being too complacent about its power. It thinks it can use its money advantage to tilt the market to its preferred crappy technologies. But guess what ? This strategy doesn't work.
The game will soon be over. Oil industry will be checkmated on all fronts. If these people wish to save their investments, they should go with the science. There is not much time to lose, as the technologies are picking up steam. And many people with money are investing already.
Shills like you cannot save their ass.
amazingdrx
Your rebuttal of drill-drill-drill is incomplete. Republicans can always say that they are for an all-the-above strategy. Don't provide them with this means of escape. Drill them on their plans for other-than-drill technologies. They have none. Make them show their balance sheet on energy demand and energy supply for the transport sector. They have none.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 9:43 pm
10 Sep 2008
Thanks.
Karsten
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:44 am
11 Sep 2008
Yes, there is. The people who drive cars, will demand it.
The oil industry is being too complacent about its power.
That is just idiotic. You see the oil companies like a boggy man under your bed. Typical sign of a cultist. They always have to pretend that there is some powerful malevolent force so that they can pretend that they are the crusaders for the light and the good.
It thinks it can use its money advantage to tilt the market to its preferred crappy technologies.
It doesn't tilt anything. The internal combustion engine is what a billion people around the world want. And it's the crapy technologies of the eco cultists that they reject.
But guess what ? This strategy doesn't work.
Much like your brain.
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:02 am
11 Sep 2008
It's a small concept car built with carbon fiber composites that are currently very expensive. They are used in things like million dollar forumla one cars. But tell you what, you go buy one and tell me how it goes. I intend to drive the cars that I have now for the next 10 to 15 years, regardless of Al Gore's drug induced ideas.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:09 am
11 Sep 2008
Anyways, I am not scared of oil companies. In fact, you are scared of us. Because knowledge is on our side, and the science is on our side. And we as a community are much smarter than you can ever be.
Too bad, Saluki.
eco-cultists ?
You are getting desperate in your attempts Saluki, to portray the environmentalists as some kind of fringe movement. No, we are the mainstream. You are the fringe. Get back into your reallyrealclimate foxhole.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:29 am
11 Sep 2008
Unless they are converted to plugin hybrid. Which is possible too.
Lovins has a whole new industrial process that make carbon fiber parts mass producibkle and cheap. It's a company and process called Fiber Forge.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:51 am
11 Sep 2008
He states that the mess we are in with foreign policy is a whole lot worse than it at first appears. We as a people do not understand other regions and the attitudes of their people.
He warned about Pakistan and other key areas.
Given this more sophisticated, more informed point of view, it is even more apparent that cheap imported oil will not be available anymore.
And making fuel here is too expensive. That leaves us with one way out of economixc disaster, renewable electric "fuel" stored in batteries and running along electric rail lines with a very limited gadoline and diesel supply for backup and transport, like aircraft, that can't be electrified at this time.
Believing in some "drill, drill, drill" miracle or synthetic fuel is a fool's hope. We need leadership that can adapt to this new reality. Instead of repeat solgans.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 5:57 am
11 Sep 2008
Yep, Can't do without that Packistani oil.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:14 am
11 Sep 2008
That simplistic foreign policy is why we are in this fix we are in now. Sloganeering big lie campaigns are not government policy.
Who represents a return to thoughtfull, careful foreign policy that respects the autonomy of different cultures? I say it's Obama, nor McCain.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:03 am
11 Sep 2008
Eh, I was joking. What Pakistani oil?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:29 am
11 Sep 2008
Once our prospective partners find out we are only in it for a good time (gas guzzling, pipelines, mining) the honey moon is over. It's not a basis for a stable relationship.
Pakistan for instance, nothing to keep our interest, and they know it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink