Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global Warming Total Fraud

global warming gop

  • Please log in to reply
493 replies to this topic

#286    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:08 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 September 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

Fine then... (sigh) economists....

I just supposed that resource depletion and the environment going to hell was based on scientific data, not economic opinions.

FWIW, my points were never based on economics but on physics. Economics ultimately involves money, and that creates a problem when we study this issue because we can create money easily, but that doesn't remove physical limitations.

We can see this in current circumstances. We believe that technology will allow for more crude oil production, but that didn't happen, even when oil prices tripled. Instead, we're now using unconventional oil, which has higher energy costs.

This is where the error involving economics comes in. Some skeptics argue that we are "saved" because crude oil production costs are now as high as that of unconventional oil, and that makes unconventional oil production feasible. The problem is that we need cheap oil no matter the source, which means less than $30 a barrel, and that means significant increases in crude oil production. In fact, this was the forecast given by skeptics backed in 2004 or earlier: by this time crude oil production will reach over 100 Mb/d and the price of oil will plummet to around $20 a barrel. Instead, we are now literally scraping the barrel by using unconventional oil to meet increasing demand and paying oil at three times the price of what we expected. Even Saudi Arabia, which boasted in 2009 that it could easily breach 15 Mb/d, is barely exceeding 10 Mb/d.

The second problem when economics is used involves peak demand. Skeptics argue that peak demand is a "solution" to peak oil because it will make oil consumption more efficient. But in global capitalist systems efficiency doesn't led to less consumption but to more, because oil producers and investors will obviously sell unused oil to those who need it.

This problem is related to another, i.e., assuming that the rest of the population is like the U.S., where consumption has reached a saturation point and where the middle class is large. The reality is, unfortunately, the opposite: most of the world's population need more resources and energy to meet basic needs, if not middle class wants.

How much energy and resources are we talking about here? The ave. global ecological footprint per capita is equivalent to that of Turkey, but the bio-capacity of the earth will allow only for conditions equivalent to that of Cuba. A growing global middle class, military forces, a financial elite, most businesses, and governments will obviously not want such conditions, and yet will have to accept the same. Worse, as population increases and the effects of environmental damage and global warming persist, then bio-capacity decreases further.

Thus, we have a global economy that has to deploy the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to meet the needs of a growing global population with more money, a financial elite that wants to make even more money by lending more money to the same population, businesses that want to make more money by selling more goods and services to the same population, governments that want businesses to make more money so that they can get more tax revenues, military forces that want to make sure that more money keeps flowing so that they get armaments, the same forces that need to be deployed and engage in "police action" to justify military costs (passed on to the public), oil production that can barely catch up with increasing demand, and the long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming that are taking their toll on human lives, property, and resources.

What will happen next? Can we find out by looking at what happened the past few decades, then factor in these additional predicaments?


#287    MiskatonicGrad

MiskatonicGrad

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dunwich USA

  • "the natural progress of things is liberty to yield and goverment to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:30 AM

What is the end game of the global warming crowd? are they trying to stop it slow it down help the rest of us cope? polar ice maybe melting I don't see any one building levees around major cities in the flood zone?
is it manmade or is it just the planet naturally warming up? how do you stop that?

It just seems to me we have study after study telling us it is happening but nothing on what it is all for. should I build a big boat and raid the local zoo?

hypothetically let's say everyone agrees the planet is warming up. now what? a little clarity on this would help me understand what the deal is.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread" --Thomas Jefferson(1821)

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session"--Mark Twain(1866)

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson(1800)

#288    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:41 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 September 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

"The New York Times Magazine has named him "America's most prominent Marxist economist"
http://en.wikipedia....ichard_D._Wolff


That capitalism desires growth and profits I agree with. But, you've never answered my question of... Isn't this true of all presently practiced economic systems? And not just of Capitalism? Why hate on Capitalism, when there is not any system practiced today that is better?


My intention is not to "hate" or "love" capitalism, or even to suggest something better, but to explain why it requires growth. The reason is obvious: businesses in capitalist systems need capital in order to increase production, and that in turn is needed to meet increasing needs of a growing population. For free market capitalist systems where competition is involved, the need to increase production is more pronounced. The capital comes from either profit or loans with interest, and both obviously involve increasing sales of goods and services.

Is it possible to have a capitalist economy that is static, i.e., no growth? Yes, but that requires a command economy, with no profits to be made and no interest on loans. Bear in mind that living conditions will also be static, that no untoward incidents (like a major natural disaster leading to destruction of significant resources will take place, or epidemics or pandemics, or groups of people who suddenly refuse to cooperate and start disrupting the system) take place.

Is it possible to have a capitalist economy with lower or negative growth? Definitely, and that has happened several times, but they occur in business cycles, with economies recovering and making up for losses. Trend-wise, the level of credit, the amount of goods and services, and the amount of resources consumed go upward.

Quote


But as the various technologies mature isn't the EROEI going to improve?


It improves to a certain point, after which physical limitations take over. That's what's happening to crude oil, and explains why we are now resorting to unconventional oil.

Quote


The need for petrochemicals is beyond doubt, that they are going to run out rapidly is still in doubt to me.


Keep in mind that the issue isn't running out of anything but production not meeting demand. That's why I am not surprised that skeptics are now hoping that demand will go down, even as a global economy requires oil consumption to grow.

Quote


I thought the current thinking was the population growth and economys of currently growing countries were going to start to mimic the US and Europe by 2040.


They have been copying developed nations since the early 1990s, but the effects of increased consumption appeared only during the next decade

Quote


In 20 to 30 years (supposedly) we'd see the global middle class decreasing, even if we did have unlimited oil.


The middle class will decrease when oil production drops. Also, there's no such thing as "unlimited oil."

Quote


"In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "renewable energy technology is becoming increasingly cost competitive and growth rates are in line to meet levels required of a sustainable energy future". The report also said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The renewable electricity sector has "grown rapidly in the past five years and now provides nearly 20 percent of the world's power generation", the IEA said."
http://en.wikipedia....l_Energy_Agency

It appears to me that the IEA says that Solar is a clear option for global energy.

It does appear that the IEA thinks that oil hav a limited future.


Obviously, we will be forced to use renewable energy, and that it will become "cost competitive." The problem is that we want higher energy returns, but renewable energy cannot assure us of that.

Quote


I'm sorry... I thought we were talking on a 20 year timescale.


We will need more than two decades for a transition to renewable energy, and that will require extensive cooperation and coordination between countries. The IEA argues that we should have started at least a decade ago.

Quote


I thought that decades ago when oil was $20 a barrel that a candy bar was 25 cents. That oil is five times as expensive really should be no surprise, everything is now five times as expensive. It costs $13 to go to a movie.



The price of oil did not triple because of inflation but because of lower energy returns. That's why oil production costs have also gone up.

Prices of various goods and services went up because the price of oil went up.

Quote



No. It supports that there will be a Global economic meltdown, not specifically a Capitalist meltdown. You are fixated on Capitalism, when Marxism (as practiced in the real world) would have to fail exactly the same.


The global economy is a capitalist one, controlled primarily by

http://www.newscient...-the-world.html

You are fixated on the idea of capitalism and not the current economy.

Marxism will fail for the same reason because state capitalism has the same flaws as other types of capitalism.

Quote

My very point. And if it is practiced by an individual and he profits by it? Won't his neighbors and then his town and then his nation be practicing it also?

Which is a senseless point, because I am referring to the global economy in light of global warming.


#289    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:45 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 September 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

So you're basically saying that the Extravagant Capitalism as practiced by the Most wealthy industrialized nations is going to come to an end? And thus send the global economy into a crash. So your problem really is not with Capitalism, but with flagrant excessive Consumerism and the damages that is caused by that consumerism?


http://en.wikipedia....iki/Consumerism

But consumerism is the result of capitalism for painfully obvious reasons, as capital from profits cannot be generated unless there is more consumption.


#290    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:49 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 September 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

My word so many find it so easy to predict doom.

Actually, it's easier to predict the opposite, especially when one has faith in technology, market forces, businesses, or government to save the day.

Predicting doom requires more data.

Quote


The evidence that the world is running out of energy is highly manipulated and not credible.  The only thing we were apparently running out of was oil, and now it seems with new technologies (several of them, not just cracking), we will have at least twenty years worth.  Also, although the Saudis and Norwegians both like to poor-mouth, it is obvious they have a lot more than they are letting on, considering their behavior.

Actually, it's the other way round: the evidence that oil production won't drop ("running out of energy" is incorrect) is, indeed, "highly manipulated and not credible" because Saudi Arabia and some OPEC members have refused external audits.

BTW, twenty years' worth is not a lot.


#291    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:52 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 September 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

The one area where we should worry is the fact that all these new hydrocarbons becoming available is going to make dealing with CO2 emissions (and global warming) politically more difficult.

That was the point raised by IEA. The catch is that the production rate from "new hydrocarbons" won't be high, with total production resting on maximum depletion rates for crude oil production, which producers don't reach because profits are lower.

Thus, the IEA believes that we face both peak oil and global warming. Extensive government intervention and cooperation will be needed to deal with both, but we have not seen that in decades.


#292    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:53 AM

View PostCyberKen, on 11 September 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think the Global Warming / Cooling should be blamed on the sun and geothermal heat (El Nino) not humans on Earth.

We also have a new technology to moderate the warming and cooling on Earth: Geoengineering

BTW, have you noticed that no hurricanes have hit the USA in 2013?

http://science.time....global-warming/

You have to look at the issue on a global scale rather than focusing only on the U.S.


#293    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:54 AM

View PostCyberKen, on 11 September 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

The amount of ice over the Arctic has increased 60% in 1 year.

They had to cancel plans to send ships through.

Earth is cooling.

Ave. temp goes up and down, but trendwise....

http://www.skeptical...tor-part-1.html


#294    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:56 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 September 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Yea -- that is something I notice; there is a distinct political aspect to this debate, on both sides.  Look at just the scientific articles and ignore stuff in either The Guardian or the Daly Mail (US equivalents -- New Your Times and Wall Street Journal.

The scientific publications I trust are Nature and Science and Scientific American.  They are unambiguous that human-caused global warming is real and presents a serious threat.

In that case, you should consider the NAS, which some consider the top science organization of the U.S.

http://www.nap.edu/c...record_id=12781

Or you can look at BEST, which skeptics support:

http://berkeleyearth...ary-of-findings


#295    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,447 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:06 AM

View PostMiskatonicGrad, on 12 September 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

What is the end game of the global warming crowd? are they trying to stop it slow it down help the rest of us cope? polar ice maybe melting I don't see any one building levees around major cities in the flood zone?
is it manmade or is it just the planet naturally warming up? how do you stop that?

It just seems to me we have study after study telling us it is happening but nothing on what it is all for. should I build a big boat and raid the local zoo?

hypothetically let's say everyone agrees the planet is warming up. now what? a little clarity on this would help me understand what the deal is.
The problem is discovered and described by scientists who are motivated by a search for the truth of a situation. The solutions can be described by the scientists/engineers, but ultimately they have no power to enact the solutions which is the remit of economists and politicians. Economists and politicians are experts in lying to themselves and others and looking for the solution which will best serve their interests.
There is a fundamental incomparability between the two approaches. The scientists have described what needs to be done to slow and ultimately stop global warming, but the politicians are to invested in their power structure to take those recommendations seriously.

Ultimately it will be the politicans who will win out, and when the consequences of inaction becomes to great to ignore they will attempt to implement some of the more easy solutions to save their political skins - but ultimately it will be to late and they will go the way of all "Great Civilizations" who over extended themselves and over exploited their environment.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#296    CyberKen

CyberKen

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:11 PM

View PostMonkeyLove, on 12 September 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:


You have to look at the issue on a global scale rather than focusing only on the U.S.

Not really. Focus on the -predictions- on many hurricanes will hit the USA in 2013.

So far, we have -zero-. OOPS!

Geoengineering is real.


#297    CyberKen

CyberKen

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:13 PM

View PostMonkeyLove, on 12 September 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:


Ave. temp goes up and down, but trendwise....

http://www.skeptical...tor-part-1.html

Trendwise........???  I prefer to look at real photographs.  Arctic Ice Levels August 2012......August 2013......i wonder what the August 2014

photo will look like?


#298    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,447 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:26 PM

Lets just remind ourself of what that trend is before we jump up and down with excitement;

Posted Image

Photos can't show you that.

If you follow the trend line down to the X axis it hits at about 2040 - which coincidentally is the date that most experts predict an ice free summer arctic.



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 13 September 2013 - 02:28 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#299    CyberKen

CyberKen

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 September 2013 - 02:31 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 13 September 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Lets just remind ourself of what that trend is before we jump up and down with excitement;

Posted Image

Photos can't show you that.

If you follow the trend line down to the X axis it hits at about 2040 - which coincidentally is the date that most experts predict an ice free summer arctic.



Br Cornelius

Lets just wait until August 2014.  Then we will know.

It should make for a great photo album.  August 2012 --- August 2013 --- August 2014

I predict another 25% will be added to the current amount of Arctic Ice. Time will tell.

The polar bears will have plenty of room to run and play.


#300    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,447 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 13 September 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostCyberKen, on 13 September 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Lets just wait until August 2014.  Then we will know.

It should make for a great photo album.  August 2012 --- August 2013 --- August 2014

I predict another 25% will be added to the current amount of Arctic Ice. Time will tell.

The polar bears will have plenty of room to run and play.
On what are you basing your prediction - gut feeling ?

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson





Also tagged with global warming, gop

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users