Lower the speed limit to 55

[historyljc]

it's been widely reported that it would take nearly 10 years for any new drilling to contribute

Yes, and had they started 30 years ago, we would have had the benefits for the past 20 years. Further delay is not going to help solve the problems.

[NeilV]

Originally posted by historyljc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it's been widely reported that it would take nearly 10 years for any new drilling to contribute

Yes, and had they started 30 years ago, we would have had the benefits for the past 20 years. Further delay is not going to help solve the problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However oil is a finite resource that took many thousands of years to be generated by the planets natural cycle of decay. If we use it faster than the planet replenishes it then we are in trouble also. There is also the question of excessive drilling leading to new faults etc and the pollution that comes hand in hand with burning more oil.

We also have too many health and environmental problems relative to the amount or oil we already use.

The solution has to be sustainable, environmentally sound and safe. Unfortunatley the commercial element will dismiss many solutions because they fall short of the landslide profits that can be made by the less responsible solutions. Sorry but that is a fact of life in our unchecked extreme greed driven commercial environment.

It may be a good thing that they didn't start more extreme drilling 30 years ago. We might have found ourselves making use of oxgen vending machines and breathing apparatus every time we went outside if they had. That would make camping interesting, having to use a respirator to enjoy the great outdoors. Do we remember the National Geographics coverage on the 1964 Tokyo Olympics showing how this was already a reality for the people living there?

[melvonnar]

Soon we will be gaging in our own polution; clean energy is the wave of the future; maybe not now, but it will come inevently; fosel fuels will run out if the human race lasts long enough. wind; terminal; sun; just a few that are comming, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will come.
short term drilling is not the long term answer.

have a nice day

[melvonnar]

I would like to add as my prediction-------------as soon as detroit unloads all their gas guslers, the price of gas will go up.

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by robert h:
...as soon as detroit unloads all their gas guslers, the price of gas will go up.

The price of petroleum products will indeed go up - as soon as demand begins to pressure supply again. Economics 101. Due to low crude oil and product prices, scraper wells are being shut in, drilling rigs are being stacked and capacity expansion projects are being deferred or cancelled as this is written. The supply side is contracting, so we'll see what happens....

Oil companies don't want $140/bbl oil - that creates a price umbrella that encourages development of alternate supplies or technologies, drives fuel switching, etc. Neither can they justify exploration in costly production areas, expensive capacity expansions, secondary and tertiary production, etc. with $40/bbl oil. Most project analysis is done on the basis of $60 to $80/bbl crude oil.

Rusty

[hamguy]

"Arguing with "Global Warming Deny-ers" is a pointless as arguing with "Holocaust Deny-ers" or "AIDS Deny-ers" - no matter how much and how overwhelming the evidence, they simple insist it's not "proof"."

I have asked for/sought and attempted to get one scientific article showing proof of AGW. Nothing. Nothing.

And science, at least when I got my physics degree, was not consensus. It was proof.

How can anyone justify the sudden switch from AGW to AGW. And then call it "climate change".

Climates have been changing for billions of years. And the majority of scientific studies have consensus concluded AGW to be a fraud.

[RustyJC]

Just a few decades ago scientists were touting Global Cooling - we were rushing headlong into the next Ice Age. Please pardon my scepticism regarding today's Global Warming chanting.

Rusty

[jspande]

hamguy, I strongly disagree with your concept of "science" (my undergraduate degree is in Physics and Mathematics and my PhD is in Physiology and Biophysics). Science is not based on "silver bullet" proof, but rather on the weight of evidence, and that evidence is based on physical measurements which in the real world always have variability. Results are given as averages of many measurement, always including a statistical derived indication of that variance, specifically the "standard error of the mean".

So yes, it is entirely appropriate in science to talk of consensus when talking of a scientific conclusion.

Please note that the link I gave was to the web site of the scientific journal "Science", which is one of the most respected scientific journals, and published by "AAAS", the "American Association for the Advancement of Science", I believe it's the oldest scientific organization in America and certainly one of the most respected in the world.

And I have no idea where anyone can come up with the claim the "the majority of scientific studies...". Are you talking about "studies" by oil company employees and advocacy groups? Please don't call anything that isn't published in a "peer reviewed" reputable scientific journal a "scientific study". For those unfamiliar with this term, all reputable scientific publications are subjected to peer review, that is, an author submits his paper to the journal, which first sends copies out to several other scientists who have recognized expertise in the subject for their comments and evaluations. Their comments and evaluations are then sent back to the author who may need to revise the text or even do more experiments before the paper can be published. It's a rigorous process.

The only fraud is that of the Global Warming Deny-ers.

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by jspande:
Please note that the link I gave was to the web site of the scientific journal "Science", which is one of the most respected scientific journals, and published by "AAAS", the "American Association for the Advancement of Science", I believe it's the oldest scientific organization in America and certainly one of the most respected in the world.

Using your source, please see the following ARTICLE. I would assume it went through a peer review process....

Rusty

[jspande]

Yes, I'm sure that is peer reviewed and one of many studies that have been weighed into current conclusions. Please note also that the article is dated July 1971, so a lot of additional studies have been done since to form today's consensus.

[RustyJC]

My point in quoting the article was to validate my statement in my prior post:

Just a few decades ago scientists were touting Global Cooling - we were rushing headlong into the next Ice Age.

So, yes, the article cited appeared in the July 1971 issue of Science, but it reflected the scientific "knowledge" of the day, just as global warming does today.

Rusty

[jspande]

Yes Rusty, that's how I understood your post - didn't intend to leave a different impression.

The success of science in finding the path to "truth" for so many questions over the last couple of centuries is amazing, and should be a source of comfort and pride to all human beings. Typically, for each new issue, at first there is a "hunting around" with confusing and seemingly contradictory results, and then with more time and effort the path that consensus takes become more and more unidirectional.

The thing that worries me most about the Global Warming issue, is that the "trend line" of the consensus seems to be toward more and more dire results. The more dire predictions from climate models of a few years ago seem now to be too conservative. The warming appears to be happening much faster than most scientists predicted. I believe the main controversy now (among mainstream scientists) is the relative amount of the contribution from man's activities versus natural cycles. But there's really little doubt that we're going to be facing some tough problems, and the longer we put off facing up to it, the harder it's going to get.

[UFO Pilot]

"I believe the main controversy now (among mainstream scientists) is the relative amount of the contribution from man's activities versus natural cycles."

That in a nutshell is the question for many of us. I don't deny that the weather runs in cycles, what I and many others question is do we (mankind) have much if any effect on the cycles.

[RustyJC]

The following graph from NASA is quite interesting. Note the last 3-4 years - an anomaly or a trend??



Rusty