Study says Earth's temp at 400-year high

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>Do you know what A.A.P.G. stands for? when you find out,let me know,again worm.Fill up your car with gas.Everyday oil goes up and when you get gas,buy things pay your ele bills if you ever do.One way shape or form.You add to my pile of money.WORM.

Yeah, so you're in a club. Big deal, woim.

So, I'm adding to your pile of money? Well, I am gainfully employed and you add to my pile of money, woim. That's called an economy - google it, bitch, and come back and let me know when your hand heals (after adding to the doctor's pile of money) and we'll discuss macroeconomics 101 - you wash my hand and I'll wash yours. What an ultra-maroon.

PS, you still have stinkfinger.

Ridge wrote:

Correction "One time events like valcanoes do NOT cause measurable trends".
Missed a word there.

Hmmmm. Krakatoa caused weather changes for some time after it blew. Isn't there another one getting ready to blow in the Philippines?
How about the Deccan Traps in India? Didn't that go on for a few thousand years? Or maybe the Siberian Traps?
Those "trends" killed off a lot of creatures, don't you think?

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>Do you know what A.A.P.G. stands for? when you find out,let me know,again worm.Fill up your car with gas.Everyday oil goes up and when you get gas,buy things pay your ele bills if you ever do.One way shape or form.You add to my pile of money.WORM.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Do I win a prize?

Coleto Creek Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
It's unequivocal, junior. Learn how to spell before you start using them 50 cent words.
I wish I lived in your fantasy world - just raise the CAFE, sign Kyoto (which exempts "third world" economies from the protocols so they can catch up to us polluting monsters) and, voila, UTOPIA! What a bunch of poopy heads.
In the meantime, keep refining your porcess, whatever the hell that is.

I beg the spelling police's forgiveness. Not being a master's thesis, I get a bit careless here. Oh well. The facts are clear if you care to see them. WE could elliminate teh need for foreign oil by raising the CAFE to do-able numbers, but Bush won't do it. Signing on to Kyoto would be an intelligent start, mor eintelligent that ignoring the problem. I have studied the science of global climae change for a few decades. It's going to get much worse and I feel bad for the innocent children who will have to deal with very nasty circumstances. Have you read "The Galileo Syndrome"? How about the U.N report on Global Warming and Climate change? Do you have grandchildren?

Coolmind wrote:

<quoted text>
I beg the spelling police's forgiveness. Not being a master's thesis, I get a bit careless here. Oh well. The facts are clear if you care to see them. WE could elliminate teh need for foreign oil by raising the CAFE to do-able numbers, but Bush won't do it. Signing on to Kyoto would be an intelligent start, mor eintelligent that ignoring the problem. I have studied the science of global climae change for a few decades. It's going to get much worse and I feel bad for the innocent children who will have to deal with very nasty circumstances. Have you read "The Galileo Syndrome"? How about the U.N report on Global Warming and Climate change? Do you have grandchildren?

Ah yes, the liberal's last resort: "I'm doing it, sniff sniff, for the children!". Puh-lease, when I was a child, the libs were doing it for me, and I turned out fine without their dire warnings coming true. Dude, big up yo'self! Respeck!
PS - it's spelled t-h-e instead of t-e-h.
Forum liberals - Zero
Me - SCOREBOARD!

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>The only bitch i want to be around.Is one with four legs.WORM.

Not sure what the implications are there, woim, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, gotta go line woim's pockets some mo and fill up da tank.

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>Your funny and you crack me up.Have fun.

Same here!

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>Bingo !!very good.I am a member been for 25 years now.Very nice to see some folk that know this.Your prise will be in the mail after you send me you name addy,ss number,bank account,and mothers maiden name,,joking.Thank you.

How about this instead?
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change...
Policy Statement:
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an international organization of over 30,000 earth scientists, supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate, specifically including the geological aspects of climate change. This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs. Such support includes major research efforts into potential effects of decreasing as well as increasing temperatures and the mitigation of such effects. This research is important to sustain the ability of agriculture to feed the growing global population as well as to understand the effects of a colder climate upon society.
Geologists who study past climate variations understand that current climate warming projections fall well within documented natural variations in past climate. Therefore, for scientific reasons, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists does not support placing a carbon tax upon fossil energy sources as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, nor do we support any implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification.
Rationale
One of the most contentious debates in American public policy today encompasses proposals to restrict emissions of the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide in order to mitigate a perceived human influence on global climate. Current proposals (Kyoto Protocol signed by the executive branch of the U.S. government, but not ratified by Congress) would federally tax crude oil at the rate of about $43.50 per barrel (1). No reduction in existing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result from this massive transfer of wealth from the private sector into the federal government.
Recognizing the potential impact on the United States and world economy of such taxation and restriction of energy use, it is important that greenhouse theories be tested thoroughly and quickly.
Scientific examination of the government case for such draconian taxation does not support the supposition of human-induced global climate change; in fact, the study resulted in recognition that the supposition is neither provable nor disprovable. The following observations are germane to the position:
1. Scientific research has been stimulated by the proposal. Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change (2).
2. Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects.

Part II-Darn thing only allows 4k at a post

Background
Geologists know:
1. Climate is constantly changing, and has varied significantly over human history. Climate changes over any time scale chosen, whether as small as a decade or as long as a geologic era.
2. Natural variability has been demonstrated to exceed any supportable estimate of human-induced variability.
3. Earth is still emerging from the Little Ice Age (A. D. 1250 - 1850). Significant rises in global temperature are a predictable consequence. The current level of global warming is real and natural.
4. Geologic controls on climate are significant. Long term changes can be demonstrated to occur congruently with geologic tectonic changes. Little is truly understood of the controls on short term changes. Solar variability, for instance, is significant in centennial to millennial changes, among other possible controls that should be examined.
5. Attempts to engineer Earth's very complex climate before understanding natural controls on climate are risky, if not impossible.
Summary
Science requires that all aspects of theory be investigated and that assumptions be tested.
Human-induced global temperature influence is a supposition that can be neither proved nor disproved. It is unwise policy to base stringent controls on energy consumption through taxation to support a supposition that cannot be substantiated.
Climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. Warming events have been historically good for most human society, while cold events have been deleterious to much of society. It is vital that climate research to examine the effects of a colder climate also be supported. Critical target areas of this research should include the potential impact of climate change on food production. Further research should concentrate on mitigation techniques to combat any serious effects of either colder or warmer climate, naturally or artificially caused, on the ability of the world to feed itself.
The AAPG urges that any actions to implement or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and any future declarations of climate policy be delayed until there is better understanding of present climate and the impacts of policy implementation, as well as some provision for mitigating errors in policy. There is no current viable substitute for petroleum-based fuels in the world’s energy budget and economy.
1. The Energy Information Administration has estimated that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would result in a carbon tax of $348 per ton of carbon (E.I.A. SR/OIAF/98-30). Murphy Oil Company estimates of about .12 ton of carbon per barrel of oil (or 8 barrels per ton of carbon)(Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1998, p.30) results in an estimated $43.50 carbon tax per barrel of oil.
2. All geologists who are interested in the climate debate probably should read two books:
• Moore, Peter D., Bill Chaloner, and Philip Stott, 1996, Global environmental change: Blackwell Science, Oxford, England, 244 p.
• Lamb, H. H., 1995, Climate, History, and the Modern World: 2nd Ed., Routledge, NY, 433 p.
• Three recent papers of interest to scientists are:
• Bluemle, J. P., J. M. Sabel, and W. Karlen, 1999, Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes: Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, n. 2, p. 63-75.
• Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastoianni, and B. Deck, 1999, Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations: Science, v. 283, p.1712-1714.
• Fan, S., M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi, and R. Tans, 1998, A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models: Science, v. 282, p. 442-446.

Sorry, Part I got lost.

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change...

Policy Statement:
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an international organization of over 30,000 earth scientists, supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate, specifically including the geological aspects of climate change. This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs. Such support includes major research efforts into potential effects of decreasing as well as increasing temperatures and the mitigation of such effects. This research is important to sustain the ability of agriculture to feed the growing global population as well as to understand the effects of a colder climate upon society.
Geologists who study past climate variations understand that current climate warming projections fall well within documented natural variations in past climate. Therefore, for scientific reasons, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists does not support placing a carbon tax upon fossil energy sources as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, nor do we support any implementation of the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification.
Rationale
One of the most contentious debates in American public policy today encompasses proposals to restrict emissions of the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide in order to mitigate a perceived human influence on global climate. Current proposals (Kyoto Protocol signed by the executive branch of the U.S. government, but not ratified by Congress) would federally tax crude oil at the rate of about $43.50 per barrel (1). No reduction in existing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result from this massive transfer of wealth from the private sector into the federal government.
Recognizing the potential impact on the United States and world economy of such taxation and restriction of energy use, it is important that greenhouse theories be tested thoroughly and quickly.
Scientific examination of the government case for such draconian taxation does not support the supposition of human-induced global climate change; in fact, the study resulted in recognition that the supposition is neither provable nor disprovable. The following observations are germane to the position:
1. Scientific research has been stimulated by the proposal. Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change (2).
2. Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects.

Part II - darn thing only allows 4k per post

Background
Geologists know:
1. Climate is constantly changing, and has varied significantly over human history. Climate changes over any time scale chosen, whether as small as a decade or as long as a geologic era.
2. Natural variability has been demonstrated to exceed any supportable estimate of human-induced variability.
3. Earth is still emerging from the Little Ice Age (A. D. 1250 - 1850). Significant rises in global temperature are a predictable consequence. The current level of global warming is real and natural.
4. Geologic controls on climate are significant. Long term changes can be demonstrated to occur congruently with geologic tectonic changes. Little is truly understood of the controls on short term changes. Solar variability, for instance, is significant in centennial to millennial changes, among other possible controls that should be examined.
5. Attempts to engineer Earth's very complex climate before understanding natural controls on climate are risky, if not impossible.
Summary
Science requires that all aspects of theory be investigated and that assumptions be tested.
Human-induced global temperature influence is a supposition that can be neither proved nor disproved. It is unwise policy to base stringent controls on energy consumption through taxation to support a supposition that cannot be substantiated.
Climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. Warming events have been historically good for most human society, while cold events have been deleterious to much of society. It is vital that climate research to examine the effects of a colder climate also be supported. Critical target areas of this research should include the potential impact of climate change on food production. Further research should concentrate on mitigation techniques to combat any serious effects of either colder or warmer climate, naturally or artificially caused, on the ability of the world to feed itself.
The AAPG urges that any actions to implement or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and any future declarations of climate policy be delayed until there is better understanding of present climate and the impacts of policy implementation, as well as some provision for mitigating errors in policy. There is no current viable substitute for petroleum-based fuels in the world’s energy budget and economy.
1. The Energy Information Administration has estimated that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would result in a carbon tax of $348 per ton of carbon (E.I.A. SR/OIAF/98-30). Murphy Oil Company estimates of about .12 ton of carbon per barrel of oil (or 8 barrels per ton of carbon)(Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 2, 1998, p.30) results in an estimated $43.50 carbon tax per barrel of oil.
2. All geologists who are interested in the climate debate probably should read two books:
• Moore, Peter D., Bill Chaloner, and Philip Stott, 1996, Global environmental change: Blackwell Science, Oxford, England, 244 p.
• Lamb, H. H., 1995, Climate, History, and the Modern World: 2nd Ed., Routledge, NY, 433 p.
• Three recent papers of interest to scientists are:
• Bluemle, J. P., J. M. Sabel, and W. Karlen, 1999, Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes: Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, n. 2, p. 63-75.
• Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastoianni, and B. Deck, 1999, Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations: Science, v. 283, p.1712-1714.
• Fan, S., M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi, and R. Tans, 1998, A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models: Science, v. 282, p. 442-446.

Sorry about the double post.
My fault but read it carefully.

Dr Renntiger wrote:

<quoted text>Very very good.I just came back from doing a well in the Indain basin out side of Carlsbad.Way back in there past the Marathon gas plant.Looking into going to the Back Warrior basin.Or poss deep Wilocx south tx.Taking bids.Alot going on getting good offers 24 hours a day.Sticking in the states.I enjoy sub surface geology.It is a total different world sitting on wells.Use to work for the "White Knights" team.In the USSR New Ventures div. I do not even like to talk oil unless folks know it.This is a good dance. One been waiting on for years.My brother writes in world oil mag.Last artical was about 3d sismic on gas chimmey migrations.Turn down a prospect in the deep Anadarko basin deep springer test.Hate oklahoma.I read so many elongs and looking into the new tools as they come out.Thank God I am a longhorn.HOOK EM.Did my thesis in the the Wilkinson formation out side of El Paso.Stayed in Van Horn.Work alot for a Major in Terrell county,deep Strawn gas play.Drill with N2 and a hammer till the formation gets wet,mist,to mud if it gets real wet.Parker drilling was the rig.#186.Used alot of ensco rigs use the same rig(parker) for the 1st horz.well in the Fussleman formation for a major in Odessa.Ratliff ranch. My head is down hole now.As said taking some bids.Again thanks for the post.I have seen it.Did.My hand hurts broke up a pit bull fight in the house yesterday,hand hurts like hell.Thanks for your support.keep it up in your fields,think safety all the time,enjoy the dance.Make hole.Global warming has been going on for so long and people think it is a joke. All kinds of thinks have a effect on it.Not one or the other,it is just happening .And at a fast pace.And if everyone did a little bit in helping stop the warming.we may slow it down but the damage has aloready been done.Now it is just the ripple effect of it.

did you see about several month ago..where a hillbilly out side knoxville tn..drilled and hit oil..he said in these hills when you are in woods smell a gas smell drill the oil is close..he claims oil all over these hills..shame oil companys bought drilling rites in the 60s.and wont drill..he hit oil at less than 500 ft..oil shot up out of ground...channel 10 news knoxville carried the story..

Coleto Creek Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, then, let the "capitalist machine" do it's thing. When fossil fuels become so expensive (and they're just about there right now) that the market can't handle it, capital will start pouring into alternative sources. In the meantime, we have plenty of oil reserves in this country that we can't get to due to environmental alarmists. And we have nuclear energy that we can't expand because of environmental alarmists. Why does everyone think the federal government is the be all end all to saving us from ourselves? Look at their track record. I'll stick with the private sector and it's imperfections any old day.

First our reserves are minimal and need to be saved as much as possible as strategic reserves, we have less than 5% of the worlds known reserves of oil. We have lots of coal and oil shale but that does us no good until we can burn or process it cleanly. Why does oil get more money for research than clean coal and shale technology?

Why does the federal government give many times more in subsidies and tax breaks to big oil than it does to Alternative energy?

Without environmental "alarmists" the world would be ten times the cesspool it already is in places.

The Government by and for the people has a responsibility to to protect its' citizens from threats. The threat of Global warming is a clear and present danger and has a hundred times more evidence behind it that WMDs in Iraq did yet it gets almost no support from our Government. Dependence on foreign oil is a threat yet our Government supports policy that enables dependency on foreign oil.

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm. Krakatoa caused weather changes for some time after it blew. Isn't there another one getting ready to blow in the Philippines?
How about the Deccan Traps in India? Didn't that go on for a few thousand years? Or maybe the Siberian Traps?
Those "trends" killed off a lot of creatures, don't you think?

Yes but they do not change the evidence for long term trends.

Coleto Creek Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
One man's credible scientist is another man's agenda pushing fop. Just proclaiming that the scientists who agree with you are infallible don't mean a damn thing. Peer review - is that a liberal step added to the scientific method? Guess I've been out of school too long. I have yet to see any of these hypotheses proven - it's all still hypothesizing at this point.
You - nothing
Me - SCOREBOARD!

Before any scientific work is printed in a credible journal or accepted for use in other work it must be peer reviewed to be credible, to date almost 1000 such true scientific works have been produced in support of Global Warming and none that I know of against and if you find one or twenty the scoreboard will still read Me 1000 you 0 unless you can come up with one.

Coleto Creek Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah yes, the liberal's last resort: "I'm doing it, sniff sniff, for the children!". Puh-lease, when I was a child, the libs were doing it for me, and I turned out fine without their dire warnings coming true. Dude, big up yo'self! Respeck!
PS - it's spelled t-h-e instead of t-e-h.
Forum liberals - Zero
Me - SCOREBOARD!

Unhappy childhood? Wife left you? Lazy eye? For some reason you are angry, I am sorry for you. Liberal has nothing to do with climate change and its disasterous results. The science, which I understand, is there and can't be changed with ad hominem attacks or angry words. I suggest if you're not going to be constructive and part of the solution, then find somewhere else to vent your venum and anger. What good does it do to put down others here? Surely it doesn't make you feel better.
Peace.

Coleto Creek Kid wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah yes, the liberal's last resort: "I'm doing it, sniff sniff, for the children!". Puh-lease, when I was a child, the libs were doing it for me, and I turned out fine without their dire warnings coming true. Dude, big up yo'self! Respeck!
PS - it's spelled t-h-e instead of t-e-h.
Forum liberals - Zero
Me - SCOREBOARD!

So far I have seen nothing but basic name calling unsubstantiated claims and other forms of mental masturbation. Care to back any of what you have posted up with some facts or civised argument or is it time to call it like it is and stop feeding the troll you apparently are?

re: above.... also read "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts. I has more fo the science than politics compared to "The Prize"

With GWB giving huge tax breaks to the oil companies and not calling for conservation (lowering speed limits, raising the CAFE, etc) don't ya think this is a GWB plot to make as much cash as possible for the car and oil companies that spend so much to elect him? The worst gov't money can buy.