Ignore 'global warming' and pursue fossil fuels

Well said,

we have to stop this "not in my backyard" attitude!

It does seem that the priority should be on finding ways to feed the world and help the third world raise their living standards to where they are comprable to the more advanced nations instead of attempting to have the more advanced nations lower their standards to be comprable of 3rd world nations. We can worry about the mythical anthropogenic global warming when and if it ever becomes more than a ficitonal boogey man.

Stamford wrote:

Well said,
we have to stop this "not in my backyard" attitude!

You are correct. The oil drills will be at your house tomorrow. What do you mean NO WAY! What kind of attitude is that?

lrbinfrisco wrote:

We can worry about the mythical anthropogenic global warming when and if it ever becomes more than a ficitonal boogey man.

You are floating down the Niagara river. Time to worry when you get 2 feet from the brink?

I think not.

Just think, they'll no longer be a need to heat our homes when the surface temperature of the Earth gets to be the same as Venus'.

In the face of all the work done by an army of researchers, giant banks of computers and data collection that spans centuries, you know better and more than all of them.

What is the source of your superior insight?

Burgy wrote:

<quoted text>
You are floating down the Niagara river. Time to worry when you get 2 feet from the brink?
I think not.

So you're attitude is one of 'self-preservation' rather than how we can help the suffering on the other side of the planet?

You have a native mentality. Sacrifice a few humans and maybe the GW Gods will be appeased.

JonQPublik wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're attitude is one of 'self-preservation' rather than how we can help the suffering on the other side of the planet?
You have a native mentality. Sacrifice a few humans and maybe the GW Gods will be appeased.

Try reading that again.

lrbinfrisco wrote:

It does seem that the priority should be on finding ways to feed the world and help the third world raise their living standards to where they are comprable to the more advanced nations instead of attempting to have the more advanced nations lower their standards to be comprable of 3rd world nations. We can worry about the mythical anthropogenic global warming when and if it ever becomes more than a ficitonal boogey man.

I agree completely with the first part of your statement. Let's elevate the living standard for the poor of the world. Lowering the standard for the advanced nations is like giving up on human ingenuity, including abandoning faith in science and technology. As to anthropogenic global warming, I cannot accept your position. If it is a fiction no harm is done by taking it seriously. We will gain from abating the health effects caused by fossil fuel smoke. If it is not fiction the planet’s carrying capacity will less compromised if we get away from fossil fuels. Our grandchildren will live in a better environment.

I believe that given an energy source, poor countries will industrialize to make goods for their own needs and they will gain wealth through exports to the rest of the world. China and India are well on the road to industrialization. The gap between the rich and the poor will narrow and everyone on the planet will be better off. Experience is that population stabilization follows industrialization.

Advanced generation nuclear power is the answer to many of our problems. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors, for example, may have the potential to produce electricity cheaper that the dirtiest coal power plants. They will produce very little waste and they have very little potential to generate actinides for nuclear weapons. Only if energy is cheaper than fossil fuels will the world be induced to abandon fossil fuels. Nuclear generated electric and hydrogen for transportation will replace petroleum as a fuel source.

Venus? Give me a break. The next 10 years are going to be cold. The earth knows how to take care of herself against change. Being earth friendly should be a personal choice. Should be something that we all want to do. But these outrageous regulations that hinder the prosperity of people that don't have the ability to choose the more expensive option is ridiculous. Look, progress is finding a cheaper, better way of doing things. Given the chance we will find a way and most people will start moving toward it. But putting regulations on tried and true ways that are more accessible to the masses should not be allowed.

My dad actually had two oil wells drilled just on the other side of his back fence in OK City, it made backyard activities very unpleasent. Very smelly, noisy and not to pretty to look at. These things are all relative, he might have had a better outlook if the wells had been any part his, but they weren't, so all he got was smelly, noisy and ugly.

John wrote:

As to anthropogenic global warming ...(i)f it is a fiction no harm is done by taking it seriously. We will gain from abating the health effects caused by fossil fuel smoke. If it is not fiction the planet’s carrying capacity will less compromised if we get away from fossil fuels. Our grandchildren will live in a better environment.

I disagree. In the name of global warming and other environmental "emergencies" goverments have made, and sometimes achieved huge claims on our freedom. This was done with utter disregard for individual human life, e.g., freon based brocho-dilators / inhalers.

The resulting destruction of human property and life brought upon by this loss of freedom dwarfs in the long run any potential benefit derived from less use of deposit fuels.

Phoenix wrote:

My dad actually had two oil wells drilled just on the other side of his back fence in OK City, it made backyard activities very unpleasent. Very smelly, noisy and not to pretty to look at. These things are all relative, he might have had a better outlook if the wells had been any part his, but they weren't, so all he got was smelly, noisy and ugly.

Did your dad get compensated, in any way, for this major nuisance?

Oil Gas Coal wrote:

Venus? Give me a break. The next 10 years are going to be cold. The earth knows how to take care of herself against change. Being earth friendly should be a personal choice. Should be something that we all want to do. But these outrageous regulations that hinder the prosperity of people that don't have the ability to choose the more expensive option is ridiculous. Look, progress is finding a cheaper, better way of doing things. Given the chance we will find a way and most people will start moving toward it. But putting regulations on tried and true ways that are more accessible to the masses should not be allowed.

Yeh, thats the solution, make oil and gas more readily available to the developing world, after all, there is and endless supply and they are ever so earth friendly to extract, transport, process and burn. Maybe another natural cycle will come along and give us another little break in seven or eight years. I agree that the developing world needs serious help to catch up with the developed world, but why not help them develop the next generation of energy sources instead of helping them make the same mistakes as us and then having to correct it in the near future. They can't afford to get it wrong the first time, because they won't get a second chance.

BDV wrote:

<quoted text>
Did your dad get compensated, in any way, for this major nuisance?

No.

Phoenix, are you suggesting that they can't be taught to harness the power of fossil fuel responsibly? Shame on you for underestimating them.

We need to keep drilling and use all available energy, which includes OIL, until there's a better way. Simple. But right now there isn't a better and more efficient way.

this guy is as much a dinosaur as his ancestors we are utilizing today. today's global warming has nothing to do with our "clean" efforts of today. it has taken many, many years to show the effects of uncontrolled emmissions of the past. personally i prefer the warm weather but i am tired of spending so much money on fuel just to fill the coffers of the current administration and their oil cronies. thinkers try to improve on technology. dinosaurs are happy where they are at either in the ground where ever this guy hangs out.

For what it's worth and to throw my 2 cents into the bucket I've only came up with 1 conclusion to Global Warming. Someone is right and someone is wrong.
I don't know about ice melting or the oceans warming or anything else to prove any evidence torwards Global Warming, but I will tell you this story.
Many years ago as a young boy I grew up in downtown San Francisco. I remember playing ball at a local park. Four summers ago I went back to visit family. I asked my grandsons if they wanted to go to the ballpark. Upon arrival we found that the gates were locked and a sign posted read "Due to the level of toxins in the air, the park will be closed untill further notice"
I was very sad to see this and ask myself the question, "Do you care where the world will be in 100 years?, per say after your last breath.

John wrote:

Advanced generation nuclear power is the answer to many of our problems. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors, for example, may have the potential to produce electricity cheaper that the dirtiest coal power plants. They will produce very little waste and they have very little potential to generate actinides for nuclear weapons. Only if energy is cheaper than fossil fuels will the world be induced to abandon fossil fuels. Nuclear generated electric and hydrogen for transportation will replace petroleum as a fuel source.

OMG, an informed voice of reason. Even the founder of Greenpeace now endorses nuclear power as one of the major alternatives to fossil fuels. I'm no GW alarmist, but no one has to convince me that the supply fossil fuels is finite and we must shift to alternatives for both power generation and transportation. The Greenies need to get off their reflexive opposition to nuclear power because nuclear power technology and safety has progressed enormously since the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl days. Chernobyl was an ancient facility, and even so the accident was due not to the design but to poor maintenance, lack of inspections and bumbling of the operators. At Three Mile Island, the containment towers did what they were supposed to do and prevented any release of radiation into the community.

Anthony wrote:

For what it's worth and to throw my 2 cents into the bucket I've only came up with 1 conclusion to Global Warming. Someone is right and someone is wrong.
I don't know about ice melting or the oceans warming or anything else to prove any evidence torwards Global Warming, but I will tell you this story.
Many years ago as a young boy I grew up in downtown San Francisco. I remember playing ball at a local park. Four summers ago I went back to visit family. I asked my grandsons if they wanted to go to the ballpark. Upon arrival we found that the gates were locked and a sign posted read "Due to the level of toxins in the air, the park will be closed untill further notice"
I was very sad to see this and ask myself the question, "Do you care where the world will be in 100 years?, per say after your last breath.

Not the: "It's for the children" approach to getting what I want, when I want and how I want it.

The phrase "for the children", or similar phrases such as "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

Reasoning
1- X is good for children
2- Anything good for children is good
3- Therefore, X is good

Logical fallacy
"For the children" suffers from the logical fallacies of appeal to emotion and irrelevant conclusion.
This argument can simply appeal to the listener's emotion by connecting an argument to innocent children that many people feel an instinctual need to protect.

Using such an argument may not even be related to the topic. For example, a politician could claim that a policy to ban oil drilling would protect the children, even if the oil drilling was in the ocean.

In this example, the politician is appealing to others' emotional desire to protect children. However, any impact it would have on children would be indirect, so "protecting the children" with this policy is rather irrelevant. It also can contain an abdication of responsibility of "think of the children, so I don't have to".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Children... (politics)