Xyrus

Oil: The Inconvenient Truth

Freefall and others. I seriously can't believe you are so ignorant.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. I happen to have a degree in mathematics, and what you are saying is plain wrong.

You also have zero understanding of climatology. For instance, you're using daily METEOROLOGICAL DATA to try and prove a point about CLIMATE. You can't do that. Really, you can't. Climatology is measured on scales of decades and centuries, not the temperature in your backyard.

The mathematics and the physic being applied to climate research have been peer reviewed and vetted by scientists from around the world who have been working in the climate sciences for decades. They have falsifiable theories. They have models that match observation. And best of all, it's all available for free, online. You can download the data sets. You can download the code. You can examine it yourself.

However, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even understand the most basic module on computational fluid dynamics, let alone all the logic needed to support maintaining precisional accuracy on massively parallel computing system.

Your challenge, freefall, shows your complete an utter lack of understanding about climate along with your knowledge of statistics.

It seems strange to me how people don't question cancer researchers when it comes to their theories, but everyone and their brother think they have the credentials and the knowledge to question climate researchers. Doesn't the cancer researcher also have a vested interest in coming up with reasons for additional funding? Couldn't they just be "claiming" to help people and hide all the cures to keep people paying them money? What's so special about climate science? Any researcher can be painted as someone out for the cash. It's a fallacious argument, not to mention idiotic.

So let me post a counter challenge to all of you. I want to see just one of you go and get a solid degree in a climate related field. I then want you to produce a peer-reviewed and accepted paper detailing how climate change isn't real, and that we are in no way attributing to it. Keep in mind that such a paper would have to be pretty impressive, as it would also need to explain all the current observations we are seeing as well as why the current climate models actually work.

Until then, you have no leg to stand on. You have your own opinions based on nothing, and supported by nothing except the inane ramblings of others in your special group.

"So the experts are taking refuge to complex models that sound important to impress the public."

Yes those silly experts, using things like computational fluid dynamics to simulate a....fluid...dynamic..... Using the obviously over-complicated physics of radiative transfer through a gaseous medium to simulate the...radiative...tran... solar energy...through...an.... And how dare they use albedo structuring to construct...the albedo...effects...of.... earth's...surface.

There are so many logical fallacies, so many debunked claims, and so much incorrect data in these posts that it's pretty clear the US education system is reaching an all time low.

So until I start seeing scientist coming out with verifiable explanations as to why we are seeing what we're seeing without AGCC, I think I'll side with the scientists. Because you're arguments seriously leave a WHOLE lot to be desired.

~X~

Black Gold or Yellow Gold?

TedSpick, ANWAR does not contain enough oil to do squat. At our consumption rate we'd burn through that in years, not decades. And that's assuming consumption wouldn't increase over that time frame (highly unlikely).

The Iraq war was a complete an utter farce, and that has been pretty well established. They had trouble just keeping the lights on at night, let alone produce weapons of mass anything. Whatever the reasons for the invasion, you can be sure that WMD's were merely used to try to scare America stupid (which, apparently, is very easy to do). In fact, if we would stop screwing around in that area of the world overthrowing democracies and installing ruthless dictators, we'd probably have a lot fewer problems. And more money to spend here. And a balanced budget.

A sensible energy policy would go a long way to help, but secret meetings with big oil a la Dick Cheney are not the way to go about it. High oil is, IMHO, a good kick in the thigh-bangers for this country.

More oil is not the answer, and will at best provide temporary relief.

~X~