Global Warming

[Black Dog]

Funny how the left can say this but I get pilloried for saying the CBC as unbiased as Pravda...

Yes and rightly so. Your comparison is nothing but hyperbole.

[ndpnic]

Eureka,

I already have money riding on the fact that Canada will NOT meet it's Kyoto obligations.

And I am willing to bet that the world won't reduce energy consumption or switch to alternative sources until they are CHEAPER than the current sources.

And this is because I do not believe that the climate is going to change so much that it will negatively affect the majority of people's lives. Why?

Because we will spend more time and money ADAPTING to the changed climate than we will spend trying to change it back.

I also believe that if the anthropogenic effect you are claiming is happening is real, then we would need to build GIANT factories to REMOVE CO2 from the environment, or else it is ALREADY TOO LATE.

Adapt to the change. Don't try to turn back the clock, because you will fail.

And remember, the only VIABLE alternative to fossil fuels is NUCLEAR. Wanna go there?

Ever heard of Solar, Wind, or Hydro Power? I have!!!!!!

[PocketRocket]

This is silly. On the one hand we have scientists saying that we are indeed causing, or at least contributin, to gloabal warming/climate change.

On the other hand, we have scientists claiming we are having no effect whatsoever.

Any of us can easily back up our stance with websites and/or literature which "proves" our point.

Here's my analogy.

You driving a car. You have two passengers.

One says "I think there's a cliff up ahead, better slow down".

The other says "I see no evidence of that, let's not waste time, speed up".

In this debate, I do not know with absolute certainty who is right, and who is wrong. But neither do any of you. Neither do the scientists, although the ones who have actually conducted the research are better equipped to form an opinion than those who have simply crunched numbers so as to come up with an answer that fits their agenda. But if we wait until we are absolutely certain, by then it may be too late.

Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution, just like the car and the cliff.

Regarding attempts to reduce pollution, how can ANYBODY say that this is a bad idea??? We breath this stuff. We drink it. We eat it. I'd rather think that a fish I am frying does not contain mercury. I'd like to believe that the air I am breathing is not full of sulphurous gases. I'd like to think that the water I drink isn't full of degraded pesticides which has run off from crops.

Unfortunately, you can't always get what you want.

Regarding wind, solar and other alternative energy sources, we should definitely be looking into ANY possibilities. Eventually every well runs dry. Windpower in particular holds promise as it is founded on easily-maintained existing technology.

(Myself and a friend are currently, as a hobby, designing a wind-powered generating system. We want to eventually get off the hydro grid altogether. Surprisingly, it's not as difficult as it sounds. The main trouble is converting most things in the house to DC power. If anyone's interested, PM me.)

Regarding nuclear energy, it's had a remarkably good record so far, given the disastrous possibilities. In addition, it's not a limited resource. Hardly my first choice if other alternatives can be developed, though.

[B. Max]

Apparently ever well does not run dry. Possibly another echo scare tactic debunked. We nead to deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power. Liberals continue to claim global warming even though there is no evidence let alone proof of any of their claims.

Sustainable oil?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: May 25, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Chris Bennett

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.

By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.

Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.

SPONSORED LINKS

The New York Times Home Delivery

Your exclusive source for the most current political, national and international news, including Campaign 2004. Now have The New York Times delivered to your home starting at just $2.40/wk.

www.nytimes.com/sb-subscription

Subscribe to USA Today

Subscribe to daily delivery of USA Today and get up to 8 weeks free and an online discount rate as a low as $2.00 per week, 47% off the newsstand price! Act now and get one free bonus gift.

www.bestmagsdirect.com

Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.

Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?

An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.

At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.

Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."

In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.

In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.

Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.

Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.

In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.

He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?

Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.

Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.

Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."

Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.

Could this be true?

In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:

The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment.

He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place.

If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.

A Hedberg Conference, sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, was scheduled to discuss and publicly debate this issue. Papers were solicited from interested academics and professionals. The conference was scheduled to begin June 9, 2003, but was canceled at the last minute. A new date has yet to be set.

[Black Dog]

If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.

Inorganic crude: much ado about nothing

. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gold spearheaded a project, which he says also involved Kenney, to illustrate the prospects of abiogenic oil and gas by drilling into crystalline rock in Sweden. But the granite did not yield an economically viable result.

....

Kenney and his Russian colleagues' paper in PNAS is "an excellent and rigorous treatment of the theoretical and experimental aspects for abiotic hydrocarbon formation deep in the Earth," says organic geochemist Scott Imbus of Chevron-Texaco Corp. "Unfortunately, it has little or nothing to do with the origins of commercial fossil fuel deposits."

While geologists agree that crude oil can come from inorganic means, the majority of commercially recovered petroleum, they say, is organic.

...

The potential that inorganic hydrocarbons, especially methane and a few other gases, might exist at enormous depth in the crust is an idea that could use a little more discussion. However, nor from people who take theories to the point of absurdity," he says. "This is an idea that needs to be looked into at some point as we start running our of energy. But no one who is objective discusses the issue at this time."

That's putting in mildly.

Abiotic oil: science or politics?

So as long as your admonishing others to "deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power", you might want to start by setting an example.

Liberals continue to claim global warming even though there is no evidence let alone proof of any of their claims.

Like those damned pinkos in the Pentagon?

[Guest eureka]

BD:

How dare you bring the "junk science" of the "scaremongers" into this.

The oceans are not changing temperature and the conveyor currents cannot collapse.

"All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

[cgarrett]

it doesn't really matter anyways does it? at the rate of change of our climate then the northern tundra will begin to melt releasing trillions of tones of methane a day. this will feed on itself creating ever hotter conditions. there's nothing that can be done. we are doomed.

there have been two other mass extinctions in the history of the planet. humans may not make it through the coming one but... life will go on for the squid!

as far as 'who is telling the truth', i'm amazed that people don't think about who is actually telling it. as for fossil fuels, there are many pundits, they are obvious and have obvious motivations. they can be named easily. they are heavily tied to vast amounts of money.

do tell who these 'powerful people' on the global warming front are. no, i'm really interested. is it the lone scientist? is it the 'powerful' environmental movement? the 'raging grannies'? maybe simply politicians looking to create environmental fear so that they can convince a country to invade iran!?

or is it another mao marxist communist plot!? have any of these guys been actually identified by the way? if not, then they certainly should be feared!

[B. Max]

If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.

Inorganic crude: much ado about nothing

. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gold spearheaded a project, which he says also involved Kenney, to illustrate the prospects of abiogenic oil and gas by drilling into crystalline rock in Sweden. But the granite did not yield an economically viable result.

....

Kenney and his Russian colleagues' paper in PNAS is "an excellent and rigorous treatment of the theoretical and experimental aspects for abiotic hydrocarbon formation deep in the Earth," says organic geochemist Scott Imbus of Chevron-Texaco Corp. "Unfortunately, it has little or nothing to do with the origins of commercial fossil fuel deposits."

While geologists agree that crude oil can come from inorganic means, the majority of commercially recovered petroleum, they say, is organic.

...

The potential that inorganic hydrocarbons, especially methane and a few other gases, might exist at enormous depth in the crust is an idea that could use a little more discussion. However, nor from people who take theories to the point of absurdity," he says. "This is an idea that needs to be looked into at some point as we start running our of energy. But no one who is objective discusses the issue at this time."

That's putting in mildly.

Abiotic oil: science or politics?

So as long as your admonishing others to "deal in facts, not assumtions, myths or outright lies that are used as attempts to gain power", you might want to start by setting an example.

Liberals continue to claim global warming even though there is no evidence let alone proof of any of their claims.

Like those damned pinkos in the Pentagon?

I put forward no lies or made no assumptions. If these wells are indeed refilling, they are refilling, regardless of the source. Also if they are refilling, why would one have to drill a new hole that was deeper. The article you posted makes that assumption. Nor did i, or the article i posted make any assertions as to what rate oil might or might not be created. All oil regardless of how it is created does not always contain the same makeup. For instance. Oil found in placeses like texas contains little or no H2s, where as in alberta, it is found in deadly concentrations that have to be extracted and dealt with. Even in alberta those concentrations differ from area to area. Oil is also found at different depths. Some oil is deep, some is not. Much of the oilsands is near the surface, but not all. Some is a depths of eleven hundred meters. The greatest threat at this time to up and down stream production are the treehugger whacos who are doing everything they can to cause a production crisis. These watermelons need to be fully exposed for what they are. Green on the outside and red on the inside. I'm also aware of the pentagon report that was produced by clinton appointments and turned out to be a scenario, and just another despot tactic and legacy from the years of clinton treachery.

[B. Max]

it doesn't really matter anyways does it? at the rate of change of our climate then the northern tundra will begin to melt releasing trillions of tones of methane a day. this will feed on itself creating ever hotter conditions. there's nothing that can be done. we are doomed.

there have been two other mass extinctions in the history of the planet. humans may not make it through the coming one but... life will go on for the squid!

as far as 'who is telling the truth', i'm amazed that people don't think about who is actually telling it. as for fossil fuels, there are many pundits, they are obvious and have obvious motivations. they can be named easily. they are heavily tied to vast amounts of money.

do tell who these 'powerful people' on the global warming front are. no, i'm really interested. is it the lone scientist? is it the 'powerful' environmental movement? the 'raging grannies'? maybe simply politicians looking to create environmental fear so that they can convince a country to invade iran!?

or is it another mao marxist communist plot!? have any of these guys been actually identified by the way? if not, then they certainly should be feared!

Please prove three things. Global warming, climate change, and that man has, or ever will cause either of the two.

[cgarrett]

b. max, i love you man! but please, don't hold back! call a spade a spade, will ya?

red on the inside? come on... communist infiltrates! mao marxist propagandists! all designed to disrupt our culture and... and what?! no really... and what?! what dark secret is it do you surmise? is it the chinese? muslims mao terrorists?

please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers'! if no one knows then don't you think we have a _real_ problem? i mean, forget terrorism! forget iran and north korea! forget libya! (oh, sorry. we have forgotten libya) we need to freeze the assets of the red forces immediately!

[Black Dog]

The greatest threat at this time to up and down stream production are the treehugger whacos who are doing everything they can to cause a production crisis. These watermelons need to be fully exposed for what they are. Green on the outside and red on the inside. I'm also aware of the pentagon report that was produced by clinton appointments and turned out to be a scenario, and just another despot tactic and legacy from the years of clinton treachery.

You know, this kinda funny coming from a dude who goes on (and on and on and on) about environmentalist's hysteria. You got a little froth on your chin, dude.

[B. Max]

b. max, i love you man! but please, don't hold back! call a spade a spade, will ya?

red on the inside? come on... communist infiltrates! mao marxist propagandists! all designed to disrupt our culture and... and what?! no really... and what?! what dark secret is it do you surmise? is it the chinese? muslims mao terrorists?

please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers'! if no one knows then don't you think we have a _real_ problem? i mean, forget terrorism! forget iran and north korea! forget libya! (oh, sorry. we have forgotten libya) we need to freeze the assets of the red forces immediately!

It would seem that there are those that do know.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html

please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers'

It is actually big business, who's revenues come largely from the everyday uninformed willing dupes of the country or their taxes which are first extorted, and then handed over to the likes of the UN.

[Guest eureka]

Is the best you can do the bringing in of a surety bond underwrite to "prove" that Global Warming does not exist.

Can you find a stockbroker to tell us why Einstein was wrong about relativity?

[B. Max]

Is the best you can do the bringing in of a surety bond underwrite to "prove" that Global Warming does not exist.

Can you find a stockbroker to tell us why Einstein was wrong about relativity?

I don't have to prove anything of the kind. It is up to the chicken littles to prove that it does. So far they are batting zero.

[Digby]

Well i guess i always thought the global warming thing was a bunch of bull as im on the east coast and winters do seem to be getting worse .

But then the other day i read an article claiming that global warming would actually make the east coast colder by affecting the gulf streams flow with fresh water from ice melting running into the ocean.I think they predicted in 5 years or more N.S . would have weather like siberia .

Now after this weeks snow storm , and watching our bay freeze over last year for the first time any body could remember im starting to wonder if Global warming isn't for real.

They was predicting that we would be fighting for food in like 5 years so maybe i better start listening to the global warming stories.

[B. Max]

Well i guess i always thought the global warming thing was a bunch of bull as im on the east coast and winters do seem to be getting worse .

But then the other day i read an article claiming that global warming would actually make the east coast colder by affecting the gulf streams flow with fresh water from ice melting running into the ocean.I think they predicted in 5 years or more N.S . would have weather like siberia .

Now after this weeks snow storm , and watching our bay freeze over last year for the first time any body could remember im starting to wonder if Global warming isn't for real.

They was predicting that we would be fighting for food in like 5 years so maybe i better start listening to the global warming stories.

Sounds like global cooling to me.

[Black Dog]

Or (gasp!) climate change! Seriously, no one has used the term "global warming" for 15 years.

[WageSlave]

A right-winger attacks global warming

I suppose we will have to wait for a major catastophic event for the few remaining people to be convinced. Kinda reminds me of the people who don't believe in dinasaurs either, eh!

Of course a lot of the people who post here at mapleleafweb remind me of the dinasaurs as well.

I personally am not conviced that climate change is 100% due to industialisation, that's not to say that I wish for a "free-er market".

I believe that it is necessary in many places to allow wild life to grow, however only for human needs (trees for oxygen, fish to eat, aswell as the life forms that sustain them should be saved).

To me alot of this global warming stuff is just paranoia spread to the working class to make us believe that a better world is hopeless.

[August1991]

Or (gasp!) climate change! Seriously, no one has used the term "global warming" for 15 years.

Who cares what the term is? It's the idea that matters.

As usual, the Left is "all flash, no cash." "All symbol, no substance." On the Left, there is an obsession with the representation of a fact rather than the fact itself. Well, sometimes symbols and appearances are wrong.

Bush Jnr "looks" dumb so he must be dumb. Sean Penn "looks" cool so he must be smart. The masses are easy to con with "images".

BD, does it really matter if someone refers to "global warming" instead of "climate change". Are the "masses" so easy to con?

Deng Xiao-Ping was an anti-Leftist hors pair. "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

[cgarrett]

b. max, i love you man! but please, don't hold back! call a spade a spade, will ya?

red on the inside? come on... communist infiltrates! mao marxist propagandists! all designed to disrupt our culture and... and what?! no really... and what?! what dark secret is it do you surmise? is it the chinese? muslims mao terrorists?

please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers'! if no one knows then don't you think we have a _real_ problem? i mean, forget terrorism! forget iran and north korea! forget libya! (oh, sorry. we have forgotten libya) we need to freeze the assets of the red forces immediately!

It would seem that there are those that do know.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/englund5.html

please name the source of financing for the 'tree huggers'

It is actually big business, who's revenues come largely from the everyday uninformed willing dupes of the country or their taxes which are first extorted, and then handed over to the likes of the UN.

oh, i get it... its the corporations who are the communists?! we should shut them down! oh, its the u.n. too who are the mao marxists?! canada is giving all of its money to the u.n. and we don't even know it?!

the article you quoted is _absolutely_ hilarious!!! really, i'm sending it to all of my friends... its the russians! the rusky pinkos! the cold war is still on!? i thought reagan 'ended' the cold war?! nuke them! nuke them now!

[cgarrett]

A right-winger attacks global warming

I suppose we will have to wait for a major catastophic event for the few remaining people to be convinced. Kinda reminds me of the people who don't believe in dinasaurs either, eh!

Of course a lot of the people who post here at mapleleafweb remind me of the dinasaurs as well.  

I personally am not conviced that climate change is 100% due to industialisation, that's not to say that I wish for a "free-er market".

I believe that it is necessary in many places to allow wild life to grow, however only for human needs (trees for oxygen, fish to eat, aswell as the life forms that sustain them should be saved).

To me alot of this global warming stuff is just paranoia spread to the working class to make us believe that a better world is hopeless.

a better world is not hopeless. oil gave us great power and mobility. but we now know that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. there are tones of alternatives... but oil is the largest industry in the world and spends the most money convincing us that carbon dioxide is not pollutant.

its very reminiscent of the tobacco companies telling people that smoking is good for you... which they used to advertise. remember the 'greening of the earth' campaign that the oil companies tried for awhile?

in many ways, events like these usually lead to a societies downfall anyways. the power of north american society is that they had a new world that was free of old restraining culture or infrastructure.

lets face it... the gas automobile is a dinosaur of technology.

[WageSlave]

a better world is not hopeless. oil gave us great power and mobility. but we now know that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. there are tones of alternatives... but oil is the largest industry in the world and spends the most money convincing us that carbon dioxide is not pollutant.

its very reminiscent of the tobacco companies telling people that smoking is good for you... which they used to advertise. remember the 'greening of the earth' campaign that the oil companies tried for awhile?

in many ways, events like these usually lead to a societies downfall anyways. the power of north american society is that they had a new world that was free of old restraining culture or infrastructure.

lets face it... the gas automobile is a dinosaur of technology.

I was more arguing against out and out environmentalism. I'm not denying that we are fed propaganda all the time.

I agree that fossil fuels being used for the automobile industry is beyond retarded, however we need these fuels to make many of the plastics fundamental to our lifestyles. This means that drilling (destruction to the environment) will need to happen.

The only possible way to free man kind from an eternity of poverty is industrialization, and if a whole load of species that in no way help sustain human existence have to go extinct, I'm regretably all for it.

Just think, tens of thousands of years from now, when hopefully we have humans travelling around in space, do you think it's even nearly concievable that we will give two shits about the siberian tiger, or the duck-billed platypus?

Me and/or you may care for this animal because we are still a very young species and still very closely connected with the natural environment, but it's irrational to get in a huff over something that is bound to happen.

[cgarrett]

i do agree that some things are bound to happen... man is going to continuously encroach on wild habitats. and the production of oil based products is not going to stop. i am not an 'out and out' environmentalist, but it is obvious that the weather is changing within my life time that i notice without anyone telling me about it. and this change is faster than any in the history of the planet. and coincides identically with the rise of carbon dioxide pollution by mankind.

we have other choices. we need to make them now even if it does upset the status quo. theres nothing harsh or damaging about it except to those who are billionaires because of existing systems. and trust that they are going to make every effort to subvert any changes.

whats ridiculous is the fact that neo con fascism immediately labels anyone who is concerned about the environment as a communist!

i own a technology company that employs several individuals. i own a 6 cylinder bmw! but you know what, my next car is going to be a prius or something similar. not some huge stinky tonka truck! suvs and trucks should be restricted to those who actually need them.

[WageSlave]

whats ridiculous is the fact that neo con fascism immediately labels anyone who is concerned about the environment as a communist!

The real ironic thing about that, is that most real communists are more worried about real threats like fascism, rather than nonsense paranoia like global warming.

[Black Dog]

On the Left, there is an obsession with the representation of a fact rather than the fact itself. Well, sometimes symbols and appearances are wrong.

No...really?

Bush Jnr "looks" dumb so he must be dumb. Sean Penn "looks" cool so he must be smart. The masses are easy to con with "images".

Why you think this is a leftist thing is beyond me: you're talking Advertising 101 (kinda like how George W. was percieved as a stong leader for standing on a pile of rubble and yelling into a bullhorn.)

BD, does it really matter if someone refers to "global warming" instead of "climate change". Are the "masses" so easy to con?

Of course it matters. And yes, they are.

I believe that it is necessary in many places to allow wild life to grow, however only for human needs (trees for oxygen, fish to eat, aswell as the life forms that sustain them should be saved).

How about allowing nature to exist for its own sake. Why must everything be about rape and pillage?

Me and/or you may care for this animal because we are still a very young species and still very closely connected with the natural environment, but it's irrational to get in a huff over something that is bound to happen.

This attitude is precisely why the planet's going to shit and human society with it. Are you so ful of huibris that you belive man kind is above nature or that natur is ours to dispose of simply becaus ewe have the means to do so? Humankind has lost its connection with the natural world and I have a hard time understanding how this can be a good thing.