Cafe La Petit Roche

[ndark]

Some in this thread have said that there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am in the undecided camp on the subject myself but I wanted to point out that there is not a consensus. Far from it actually. The thing is we only hear from people that agree with GW and the others who don't agree with it are discredited or people attempt to discredit them much like how people in this thread made snide remarks about them thinking the Earth is flat.

If anyone just tried to do some research you would find there are a lot of scientists who dispute that GW is fact. Here is a link to start with. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

And just for clarification. I do not think that we should continue to burn fossil fuels and release carbon at the rate that we are. I am all for conservation and changing the way we live to decrease our emissions. I just wanted to make the point that the argument is far from one sided like some in this thread have insinuated. There are points on both sides.

[EJC]

Some in this thread have said that there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am in the undecided camp on the subject myself but I wanted to point out that there is not a consensus. Far from it actually. The thing is we only hear from people that agree with GW and the others who don't agree with it are discredited or people attempt to discredit them much like how people in this thread made snide remarks about them thinking the Earth is flat.

If anyone just tried to do some research you would find there are a lot of scientists who dispute that GW is fact. Here is a link to start with. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

And just for clarification. I do not think that we should continue to burn fossil fuels and release carbon at the rate that we are. I am all for conservation and changing the way we live to decrease our emissions. I just wanted to make the point that the argument is far from one sided like some in this thread have insinuated. There are points on both sides.

I still amazed by the prior page where so many threads stated that GW is "fact". Obviously it isn't fact since there is recent data supporting that last year alone was so much cooler that it nearly wiped out all the temperature "gains" from the prior decade. And yes, there are plenty of real scientists who absolutely refute GW. To add to this, there are plenty of scientists who actually believe global cooling is an even greater possibility. And to add to THAT, virtually all scientists believe that global cooling would be FAR more hurtful to humanity than global warming should it occur. We don't know what's happening at this point, we just know that things keep changing. We cannot accurately predict what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now in Little Rock and yet somehow we KNOW what Earth will do and how it will react to an almost unlimited number of factors --- most of which are outside of humanity's control. The height of hubris.

I too agree that we can better manage resources and that we should seek out renewable energy, but I have serious doubts that this will have a material impact on our climate.

[Stormcrow]

I still amazed by the prior page where so many threads stated that GW is "fact". Obviously it isn't fact since there is recent data supporting that last year alone was so much cooler that it nearly wiped out all the temperature "gains" from the prior decade. And yes, there are plenty of real scientists who absolutely refute GW. To add to this, there are plenty of scientists who actually believe global cooling is an even greater possibility. And to add to THAT, virtually all scientists believe that global cooling would be FAR more hurtful to humanity than global warming should it occur. We don't know what's happening at this point, we just know that things keep changing. We cannot accurately predict what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now in Little Rock and yet somehow we KNOW what Earth will do and how it will react to an almost unlimited number of factors --- most of which are outside of humanity's control. The height of hubris.

I too agree that we can better manage resources and that we should seek out renewable energy, but I have serious doubts that this will have a material impact on our climate.

We all know that major source of "proof" for GW put forth is that nice graph Al Gore showed us of the relationship between CO2 and temperature and how we are currently MUCH higher in CO2 levels than anytime in the history of Earth. This data is derived primarily from ice cores and is good solid data. However, one thing we are not being told about it is the fidelity of this data. It is incredibly important that if we are to extrapolate our current situation from this, that we understand where gaps and holes lie. Could it be that we are actually missing peak hot excursions from global mean from ice core data??? Does it not strike anyone as possible that ice cores are wholly ineffectual at recording that? How many centuries of data is missing anyway that is being interpolated over in the data we are shown?? You know it isn't perfect...

[LRU1967]

Some in this thread have said that there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am in the undecided camp on the subject myself but I wanted to point out that there is not a consensus. Far from it actually. The thing is we only hear from people that agree with GW and the others who don't agree with it are discredited or people attempt to discredit them much like how people in this thread made snide remarks about them thinking the Earth is flat.

If anyone just tried to do some research you would find there are a lot of scientists who dispute that GW is fact. Here is a link to start with. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

And just for clarification. I do not think that we should continue to burn fossil fuels and release carbon at the rate that we are. I am all for conservation and changing the way we live to decrease our emissions. I just wanted to make the point that the argument is far from one sided like some in this thread have insinuated. There are points on both sides.

Have you done any research on the Arkansas people listed on the "Petition Project" site? I Googled most of the PhDs and was surprised at the small number of hits most of their names got. One of them turned out to have been dead since 1999. On a number it was impossible to see what was their connection to Arkansas. On most of them the Google hits were that their names were on the Petition Project.

[skirby]

Have you done any research on the Arkansas people listed on the "Petition Project" site? I Googled most of the PhDs and was surprised at the small number of hits most of their names got. One of them turned out to have been dead since 1999. On a number it was impossible to see what was their connection to Arkansas. On most of them the Google hits were that their names were on the Petition Project.

For more information on the 'Petition Project" go to Watts Up With That? Go down about 3/4 of the page to read the remark.

[LRU1967]

For more information on the 'Petition Project" go to Watts Up With That? Go down about 3/4 of the page to read the remark.

There are names on the Arkansas PP that I recognize, in particular a couple of LR docs. But you'd expect PhDs to be doing research and writing papers which a Google search would pick up. I don't think lists like PP are worth much. It's often said about economics that you can find an expert for whatever opinion you might have. The Global Warming question is the same. I believe the majority opinion is that; yes, the earth is warming and human activity is ONE cause. I also find it odd that so many conservative commentators deny global warming. Jonah Goldberg, who has an article on the site you cite, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity etc. etc. These guys aren't scientists and are no more capable of interpreting scientific data than I am.

[EJC]

There are names on the Arkansas PP that I recognize, in particular a couple of LR docs. But you'd expect PhDs to be doing research and writing papers which a Google search would pick up. I don't think lists like PP are worth much. It's often said about economics that you can find an expert for whatever opinion you might have. The Global Warming question is the same. I believe the majority opinion is that; yes, the earth is warming and human activity is ONE cause. I also find it odd that so many conservative commentators deny global warming. Jonah Goldberg, who has an article on the site you cite, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity etc. etc. These guys aren't scientists and are no more capable of interpreting scientific data than I am.

Yes, there is a mass majority movement believing in the hype...which is obviously unproven. And yes, conservatives have, in some cases, jumped to the opposite conclusion of the liberal opinion. (Quite possibly because of economic factors or because they just can't see themselves agreeing with the other party...seems to happen all too often these days.) The fact remains that all 4 major climate monitoring agencies all identified a serious cool down last year.

Believe what you want, and the PP people believe another.

[LRU1967]

Yes, there is a mass majority movement believing in the hype...which is obviously unproven. And yes, conservatives have, in some cases, jumped to the opposite conclusion of the liberal opinion. (Quite possibly because of economic factors or because they just can't see themselves agreeing with the other party...seems to happen all too often these days.) The fact remains that all 4 major climate monitoring agencies all identified a serious cool down last year.

Believe what you want, and the PP people believe another.

Please name the "4 major climate monitoring agencies" you cite in your post. Do these agencies deny global warming?

[EJC]

Please name the "4 major climate monitoring agencies" you cite in your post. Do these agencies deny global warming?

The four in question are NASA, UAH, RSS, and Hadley Centre. Some of these groups may well "predict" global warming and some may not...but what of it? I don't care as much about what they predict but more about what's actually happening.

Here's an article you should have seen a few months ago...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

[LRU1967]

The four in question are NASA, UAH, RSS, and Hadley Centre. Some of these groups may well "predict" global warming and some may not...but what of it? I don't care as much about what they predict but more about what's actually happening.

Here's an article you should have seen a few months ago...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

I'm surprised that you used the Hadley Centre to support your views. The Centre says that the 07 to 08 cooling wasn't a trend. They point out that January 2007 was the warmest January on record and the lower temp in 2008 "merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate". The Centre further states "while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind".

I think further discussion of Global Warming is pointless. As you previously posted "Believe what you want". Below is the Hadley Centre's site which has some excellent FACTS about climate change.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

[EJC]

I'm surprised that you used the Hadley Centre to support your views. The Centre says that the 07 to 08 cooling wasn't a trend. They point out that January 2007 was the warmest January on record and the lower temp in 2008 "merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate". The Centre further states "while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind".

I think further discussion of Global Warming is pointless. As you previously posted "Believe what you want". Below is the Hadley Centre's site which has some excellent FACTS about climate change.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

Why are you surprised? I'm not afraid to point to a reference that has opinions that differ from mine, although you appear to be.

But once again you've fallen prey to their predictions or their reasoning for what's happened versus the actual results. As I noted in my post, some may feel that warming is occuring and some may not. They can continue to predict all sorts of things which may come true, but probably won't as our predictions rarely hold up under scrutiny after the fact. Once again, last year there was a significant movement in another direction. This year....who knows but it has started out on the cooler side...so is it a trend? Perhaps so. My guess is that it isn't actually a trend, but it could be. What it does indicate is that in spite of a continued escalation of carbon output, Earth does it's own thing based upon many more factors that we can currently understand.

I do agree that it's pointless to debate this with you as you have already determined that GW is here...I have stated that I have serious doubts as there is far too much speculation and far too little understood to make the far reaching statements and conclusions drawn by the GW machine. I have offered up that there are reasonable people inside and outside of the scientific community who are believe that GW is not a foregone conclusion and that carbon (and man's output of it) isn't really the thing to focus on anyway. And then I offered up some very simple facts regarding something very recent that goes against the GW trend. Meanwhile, it appears your mind is made up...but some of us are open to other possibilities. It reminds me of a statement a neighbor of mine made the other day where he stated that the cooling we're seeing is probably caused by global warming conditions causing our atmospheric layers to be reduced.....so basically cooling is caused by warming. In that case, ANYTHING that happens supports their "arguement".

[Stormcrow]

Thats has to suck. This market is horrible. Its a bad time to be out of a job. I pray & hope that things get better. Its this Gas Bullsh!t. Everything was going fine, untill things started going towards 3, now 4, and im sure 5 if they have anything to say about it. Sure, they are making RECORD PROFITS, DEMAND IS DOWN, but its still a "supply and demand" problem. WHATEVER! they really think we are stupid......................Sorry, thats another story, another day! lol.

But yea, i wish everyone luck at alltel. I would be pissed if i worked there. Our society lacks vision, and only looks at ways to get rich and make others suffer.

Not to get too OT...gas is an inelastic commodity. It doesn't behave in quite the same supply and demand relationship as most everything else. Until the price reaches a breaking point, we'll still consume in almost the same quantities. Sure, a lot of people will cut back their consumption but not enough to really make much of a dent in demand. Once prices hit that breaking point, demand will plummet. It's a nonlinear phenomenon and our whole economy is playing with fire. We don't know where that breaking point is. If we cross it, our entire national and possibly international economy will be in turmoil for years.

A lot of that is conjecture on my part, minimally educated conjecture, but still conjecture.

[LRguy21]

Not to get too OT...gas is an inelastic commodity. It doesn't behave in quite the same supply and demand relationship as most everything else. Until the price reaches a breaking point, we'll still consume in almost the same quantities. Sure, a lot of people will cut back their consumption but not enough to really make much of a dent in demand. Once prices hit that breaking point, demand will plummet. It's a nonlinear phenomenon and our whole economy is playing with fire. We don't know where that breaking point is. If we cross it, our entire national and possibly international economy will be in turmoil for years.

A lot of that is conjecture on my part, minimally educated conjecture, but still conjecture.

The scary thing is, when do we find out what the breaking point is. I seriously hope & pray that we dont end up in a global depression. The people that are doing this will have something coming to them in the future. I just know they do!

anyways, i hope that the world will continue to use less and less gas and find alternative energy. Please do not drill of shore. Lets find new energy. No more of the same.

But back to Altell. What happens if for some reason, the deal falls apart. lets say the Communications board doesnt allow this merger. what then?

[Architect]

The scary thing is, when do we find out what the breaking point is. I seriously hope & pray that we dont end up in a global depression. The people that are doing this will have something coming to them in the future. I just know they do!

anyways, i hope that the world will continue to use less and less gas and find alternative energy. Please do not drill of shore. Lets find new energy. No more of the same.

But back to Altell. What happens if for some reason, the deal falls apart. lets say the Communications board doesnt allow this merger. what then?

The "people who are doing this"? That would be you, me, the Chinese/maturing Asian markets, the Indians, etc. all in conjunction with a finite resource and a weak dollar. Somehow we always find someone else to blame.

[johnnydr87]

Not to get too OT...gas is an inelastic commodity. It doesn't behave in quite the same supply and demand relationship as most everything else.

Word. Hopefully this will alter consumer preferences and create a push for alternative energy, which yes, has been severely hampered under Republican rule.

See documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for somewhat related topic.

Architect, don't forget speculators. Don't forget the record oil profiteers. Don't forget OPEC.

[bchris02]

Word. Hopefully this will alter consumer preferences and create a push for alternative energy, which yes, has been severely hampered under Republican rule.

See documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for somewhat related topic.

Architect, don't forget speculators. Don't forget the record oil profiteers. Don't forget OPEC.

What is "alternative energy"? When there is a viable option, we'll talk, but for now our economy is built on oil. In order to survive this, we need to do something to increase supply and decrease demand. If people would just slow down on the road it would do a TON to decrease demand. If they would accelerate gradually at stoplights instead of flooring it when it turns green. To increase supply, for now we need to do some drilling. That isn't the long term solution, but unless we want $7 gas next summer, something has to be done. Last but not least, the Federal Reserve needs to quit continually bailing out the housing market because its tanking the value of the dollar which in turn causes oil to skyrocket. These oil prices are a far greater threat to our economy than the subprime crisis. The Fed needs to do whatever it takes to stop the dollar's free fall. If we can get as small as a 10% rally in the dollar, it would make a MAJOR difference in these prices.

[johnnydr87]

What is "alternative energy"? When there is a viable option, we'll talk, but for now our economy is built on oil. In order to survive this, we need to do something to increase supply and decrease demand.

There ARE viable options and there have been for a while.

1) Who killed the electric car example: In the late 90s, GM had electric cars that could travel 150-200 miles on one charge. With present battery technology, engineers estimated the cars could travel +300 miles. But, GM recalled each and every one of their cars. There were many culprits behind this decision, one of them big oil.

2) Fuel Cells. Back when I was a wee junior in high school 4 years ago, I was already doing research on this chemical reaction based alternative energy. They're reaching production quality now (and have been used in other applications earlier), and Honda has released the first fuel cell car: the Honda FCX Clarity in southern CA. The problem with these is that they need to be refilled w/ hydrogen, much like gas stations. But 1) they're a helluva lot more environmental friendly and 2) it doesn't have the problems associated with oil.

3) Solar panels are getting better all the time. There was an article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813954,00.html) about a solar panel company that was heavily funded by the late John Walton. Solar panels are reaching similar price levels to semiconductors.

4) Wind energy. Ever heard of LM Glasfiber? Sure, wind energy isn't so viable here, but it's definitely being used in other states. Drive west through CA and you'll see them in huge fields along the interstate. And again, they're getting better all the time.

5) Geothermal. Already in huge use in Iceland (90% of electricity from geothermal).

After the first oil crisis in the 70s under Carter, Carter invested heavily in alternative energy. The Reagan admin basically reversed this completely, and now countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Japan are whooping us. The European countries especially subsidized their alternative industries. Make no mistake, if alternative energy had been funded earlier, things would be far different right now.

If people would just slow down on the road it would do a TON to decrease demand. If they would accelerate gradually at stoplights instead of flooring it when it turns green. To increase supply, for now we need to do some drilling. That isn't the long term solution, but unless we want $7 gas next summer, something has to be done. Last but not least, the Federal Reserve needs to quit continually bailing out the housing market because its tanking the value of the dollar which in turn causes oil to skyrocket. These oil prices are a far greater threat to our economy than the subprime crisis. The Fed needs to do whatever it takes to stop the dollar's free fall. If we can get as small as a 10% rally in the dollar, it would make a MAJOR difference in these prices.

Offshore drilling would have negligible effect on our gas prices, according to McCain himself, and it doesn't really address the issue anyways. Wasn't Iraq supposed to help with our oil prices? After all, we've altered their constitution so it's friendly to foreign oil companies. Drilling and polluting ANWR, which many argue would be negligble on gas prices as well, would be far more harmful for our natural heritage than beneficial to our wallets. These are just superficial, stopgap measures.

The FedRes isn't raising interest rates to curb inflation/the weakening dollar b/c that would also curb consumption. Who knows what they'll do next: curbing inflation increases unemployment, and curbing unemployment increases inflation (taylor curve). With the supply shock of oil, the FedRes has to deal with both inflation and escalating unemployment, which complicates matters. Something's gotta give, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

[bchris02]

There ARE viable options and there have been for a while.

1) Who killed the electric car example: In the late 90s, GM had electric cars that could travel 150-200 miles on one charge. With present battery technology, engineers estimated the cars could travel +300 miles. But, GM recalled each and every one of their cars. There were many culprits behind this decision, one of them big oil.

2) Fuel Cells. Back when I was a wee junior in high school 4 years ago, I was already doing research on this chemical reaction based alternative energy. They're reaching production quality now (and have been used in other applications earlier), and Honda has released the first fuel cell car: the Honda FCX Clarity in southern CA. The problem with these is that they need to be refilled w/ hydrogen, much like gas stations. But 1) they're a helluva lot more environmental friendly and 2) it doesn't have the problems associated with oil.

3) Solar panels are getting better all the time. There was an article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813954,00.html) about a solar panel company that was heavily funded by the late John Walton. Solar panels are reaching similar price levels to semiconductors.

4) Wind energy. Ever heard of LM Glasfiber? Sure, wind energy isn't so viable here, but it's definitely being used in other states. Drive west through CA and you'll see them in huge fields along the interstate. And again, they're getting better all the time.

5) Geothermal. Already in huge use in Iceland (90% of electricity from geothermal).

After the first oil crisis in the 70s under Carter, Carter invested heavily in alternative energy. The Reagan admin basically reversed this completely, and now countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Japan are whooping us. The European countries especially subsidized their alternative industries. Make no mistake, if alternative energy had been funded earlier, things would be far different right now.

Lets see. Electric cars and fuel cells all require some form of energy to get make it work. In addition, the batteries only last 2 years and cost 11,000 to replace under current technology. The cars are ready but the batteries aren't. They would need to be powered by an external source be it oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Same goes for fuel-cells. Nuclear would be the perfect solution but that would never get past environmental lobbyists. Its come a long way since 3-mile island. Environmentalists are also against solar and wind farms. Just last week, congress blocked the development of a solar farm in the Arizona desert due to environmentalist concerns. Geothermal? Don't know enough about it to comment. Bottom line is, environmentalists wont be happy until we are back in the stone age. As long as the Democratic party caters to every wish of environmental lobbyists, nothing will get done.

Offshore drilling would have negligible effect on our gas prices, according to McCain himself, and it doesn't really address the issue anyways. Wasn't Iraq supposed to help with our oil prices? After all, we've altered their constitution so it's friendly to foreign oil companies. Drilling and polluting ANWR, which many argue would be negligble on gas prices as well, would be far more harmful for our natural heritage than beneficial to our wallets. These are just superficial, stopgap measures.

The FedRes isn't raising interest rates to curb inflation/the weakening dollar b/c that would also curb consumption. Who knows what they'll do next: curbing inflation increases unemployment, and curbing unemployment increases inflation (taylor curve). With the supply shock of oil, the FedRes has to deal with both inflation and escalating unemployment, which complicates matters. Something's gotta give, and it's going to get worse before it gets better.

No need to necessarily drill in ANWR or offshore. North Dakota, Montanam and Manitoba have oil reserves that exceed that of ANWR. Lets tap it! Also, liberal environmentalist lobbyists spew the rhetoric that more oil would have a neglible effect on oil prices. The reality is putting 2-4 million extra barrels per day on the market will put downward pressure on the price of oil. As soon as drilling was announced, the same speculators that have bid prices up to $145 (as of today) will bid the price down because they know the oil is coming. Even if it takes 5-7 years to get the first barrel, the effect on prices will begin immediately. Oil companies say they can start producing oil within 3 years, not the 10 years liberal talking heads try to say. We must drill now for a short term fix or our economy will not make it long enough to transition to alternative energies, which will take decades to do.

[skirby]

I say drill in ANWR or should I say drill in Area 10-02. Only 2000 acres are available for drilling and it is not in the area classified as a "refuge" or "wilderness". This area was added with the intent of oil and gas exploration. The total area of ANWR covers over 19 million acres. Drilling was approved by Congress but Bill Clinton vetoed it because he said it would take too long for the oil to make it to market(10 Years). Its been over 10 years and we sure could use it now. It wouldn't matter if it would reduce the price but it would keep U.S. dollars at home.

[EJC]

I say drill in ANWR or should I say drill in Area 10-02. Only 2000 acres are available for drilling and it is not in the area classified as a "refuge" or "wilderness". This area was added with the intent of oil and gas exploration. The total area of ANWR covers over 19 million acres. Drilling was approved by Congress but Bill Clinton vetoed it because he said it would take too long for the oil to make it to market(10 Years). Its been over 10 years and we sure could use it now. It wouldn't matter if it would reduce the price but it would keep U.S. dollars at home.

True. Many people want to research alternative energy...which is great, but it'll be a lot longer than 10 years before we can effectively distribute any alternative. Our own oil could greatly soften the blow during this period. This discussion should be moved to the coffee shop.

[johnnydr87]

True. Many people want to research alternative energy...which is great, but it'll be a lot longer than 10 years before we can effectively distribute any alternative. Our own oil could greatly soften the blow during this period. This discussion should be moved to the coffee shop.

I've resisted replying to this since it's off topic, but just to set the record straight:

it will be 15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled, and it will reduce our cost of oil by only a few cents by that time, when oil could be well around $10. According to studies by think tanks.

Not worth it. And there ARE alternative energy technologies sufficient to power us. Ask TX, which just approved $4.6B transmission lines to carry wind power from west TX to the metropolises in East, and already has billions invested in the technology. Solar power technology has vastly improved as well, and I could cite quite a few cities in Europe that are using vast amounts of it. Global warming is real (acc to thousands of scientists at the best universities in the world, the ones who haven't gotten their degrees at "bible colleges" [to quote a journalist], or who haven't been paid off to be a unruly dissidents), and every progressive state in the US and country in this world has an action plan. My university has a vice chancellor of sustainability and is part of a consortium of hundreds of colleges working for sustainability. I'm personally pretty involved in these endeavors at school and in DC.

I'll get off my soapbox.

[skirby]

I've resisted replying to this since it's off topic, but just to set the record straight:

it will be 15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled, and it will reduce our cost of oil by only a few cents by that time, when oil could be well around $10. According to studies by think tanks.

Not worth it. And there ARE alternative energy technologies sufficient to power us. Ask TX, which just approved $4.6B transmission lines to carry wind power from west TX to the metropolises in East, and already has billions invested in the technology. Solar power technology has vastly improved as well, and I could cite quite a few cities in Europe that are using vast amounts of it. Global warming is real (acc to thousands of scientists at the best universities in the world, the ones who haven't gotten their degrees at "bible colleges" [to quote a journalist], or who haven't been paid off to be a unruly dissidents), and every progressive state in the US and country in this world has an action plan. My university has a vice chancellor of sustainability and is part of a consortium of hundreds of colleges working for sustainability. I'm personally pretty involved in these endeavors at school and in DC.

I'll get off my soapbox.

Since you got off your soapbox I will get on mine.

15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled. Get real, I don't know what think tanks you are using for your information but that is ridiculous. But lets say that is true. What good is wind or solar going to be in that time frame to power cars? You could say electric cars but not in this time frame. You cannot replace the hundreds of millions of gas powered cars in the U.S. within this time frame. Can you explain what is going to happen to the batteries from the hundreds of millions of cars when they wear out? According to the NY TImes a $4.93 billion plan to construct transmission lines has been approved to carry power from West Texas wind farms to Texas cities. There is no mention that this power will be used for "the metropolises in East" whatever you meant. These lines will not be complete until at least 2013.

[EJC]

Since you got off your soapbox I will get on mine.

15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled. Get real, I don't know what think tanks you are using for your information but that is ridiculous. But lets say that is true. What good is wind or solar going to be in that time frame to power cars? You could say electric cars but not in this time frame. You cannot replace the hundreds of millions of gas powered cars in the U.S. within this time frame. Can you explain what is going to happen to the batteries from the hundreds of millions of cars when they wear out? According to the NY TImes a $4.93 billion plan to construct transmission lines has been approved to carry power from West Texas wind farms to Texas cities. There is no mention that this power will be used for "the metropolises in East" whatever you meant. These lines will not be complete until at least 2013.

I'm glad Johnny didn't resist as it allows for further dialogue. First, let's bear in mind that the prior administration said the same thing and if we HAD done something about this 12 years ago...imagine how close we'd be. (and now people suggest holding off again???? What the heck for? So we can remain dependent on the Middle East and STILL have nothing to show for it for another decade?) The transition to "alternative" fuel is beyond the any oil timeline. Then there are the distribution concerns and, as you've mentioned, battery concerns as it is well known that these batteries are every bit as "bad" for the environment as our other resources. Oil doesn't have to be our long term future, but it can easily be our short/medium term future. Our OWN oil could easily be the buffer between today and whatever energy source the future holds but since we haven't unleashed a power source even remotely as effective as oil yet, the notion of continuing dependence on Arab oil make no sense.

[johnnydr87]

Since you got off your soapbox I will get on mine.

15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled. Get real, I don't know what think tanks you are using for your information but that is ridiculous.

***If possible, it'd be nice to repost this in a coffeeshop discussion without deleting our posts***

So let's see, Mr. Skirby on the Urban Planet/ Little Rock Metropolitan Area forum thinks that the think tanks' estimates are "ridiculous." And, he would know better too, after all his common sense helped him arrive to the keen insight that global warming is not real a few years ago.

Skirby, what's your basis for coming to the conclusions you usually come to? What evidence do you have that supports your opinion (e.g., that global warming isn't real)? How much do you weigh whatever scant quasi-evidence you have against the scientific journal articles of thousands of scientists? Truth isn't distributed equally, and the ramblings of some average joe/random journalist is never on par with those of a scientist when it comes to scientific phenomena (referring specifically to global warming).

Similarly, what’s your basis for saying my information is ridiculous? I would like to amend what I said before: it was not a think tank that said Arctic drilling would have not have an effect for another 10-15 years, it was the Energy Information Administration of the US government:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nation...oil-prices.html

"But the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today."

Skirby, if you ever use reputable sources to refute my arguments, I will gladly bow out. I care about the truth, that's all.

"But lets say that is true. What good is wind or solar going to be in that time frame to power cars? You could say electric cars but not in this time frame. You cannot replace the hundreds of millions of gas powered cars in the U.S. within this time frame. Can you explain what is going to happen to the batteries from the hundreds of millions of cars when they wear out?"

Where did I propose completely "replacing hundreds of millions of gas power cars within this time frame"? In fact, I think phasing out fuel completely in the next 15-20 yrs is completely unrealistic. So where did you read that that was ever my opinion, or are you imputing opinions that would make a nice straw man?

Here are the types of cars we have, and where we can improve further: hybrid, electric, fuel cell, compressed air (in France), biofuel, solar. All but solar are in production somewhere. GM, a little behind but making plans for catchup, has plans for hybrids, biofuels, electric, and fuel cells http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/...icles/overview/

As for the batteries problem from old gas powered cars: why does that matter? Isn't that as much a problem as it is now? Are you saying that some bright minds can't find of a safe way to dispose of those batteries as we transition? Is there an impending apocalypse due to our batteries and to avert it we should stay on gas-powered cars?

"According to the NY TImes a $4.93 billion plan to construct transmission lines has been approved to carry power from West Texas wind farms to Texas cities. There is no mention that this power will be used for "the metropolises in East" whatever you meant. These lines will not be complete until at least 2013."

Check the Washington Post. Or Wall Street Journal. Those two in addition to NYT are the ones I scan for global warming/alternative energy related articles everyday, and I promise at least one of them mentioned the cities. Metropolises in East TX = Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Houston.

And it's a bit odd, but Arkansas will be manufacturing alternative energy (wind power), shipping it over to our sentimental rival, Texas....and powering all of this alternative energy production with a new coal plant. The Arkansas Pollution and Ecology Commission recently ruled that CO2 isn't a pollutant when every other state in the land is in fact taking aggressive measures to curb it.

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

As for offshore drilling:

The Energy Information Administration--not merely a think tank but an actual arm of this government--said, "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

To further illustrate how are prices will not signficantly be affected:

"Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically," said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they could get from French consumers? No. Where oil comes from has no effect on price."

And why is it that polls show that people in landlocked states are more supportive of offshore drilling than people in coastal states? Proximity to relevant information: in this case, people on the coast here more about the hazardous effects of offshore drilling.

So then, if offshore drilling does absolutely nothing for the average consumer until 2030 (at which point we can expect to save a quarter on our $12 per gallon gas), then why are we even talking about it?

It will marginally reduce our dependence on foreign oil in several years--but how in the world is that worth it when alternative energy will in all likelihood be far advanced by 2030 and we will environmentally damage ANWR.

They say the drilling is only on 2000 acres, but how is that measured? According to Time Magazine:

Turns out the 2,000 acres don't have to be contiguous and only the space of the equipment touching the ground is counted. Each drilling platform can take up as little as 10 acres. The pipelines are above ground. For space purposes, the amendment counts only the ground touched by the stanchions holding up the pipe. Road widths also are conveniently left out of the space limit. "It's a complete sham," complains Allen Mattison, a spokesman for the Sierra Club which opposes drilling. "It's like a fishing net. If you count just the space of the string's width, that's small. But if you open up a fishing net and count the area it covers, that's much larger." Environmentalists complain that the House limit ends up allowing oil companies to spread out over practically the entire 1.5 million acres.

As for the 700,000 jobs, that number comes from an 11-year-old study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute that economists complain wildly inflates the employment potential. "It's just absurd," says Eban Goodstein, an economist at Lewis and Clark College, who predicts the real job growth will be less than one-tenth that number.

Come on people, where's the vision?

EJC:

"Then there are the distribution concerns and, as you've mentioned, battery concerns as it is well known that these batteries are every bit as 'bad' for the environment as our other resources."

Cite your source, and I'll respond. (In fact, I do know that there are concerns that making fuel cells w/ coal power plants defeats purpose of the technology, but I know of no examples that are as drastic as your quote suggests. I might be wrong. Prove it to me.)

[bchris02]

I've resisted replying to this since it's off topic, but just to set the record straight:

it will be 15-20 years before the first oil is ever drilled, and it will reduce our cost of oil by only a few cents by that time, when oil could be well around $10. According to studies by think tanks.

Not worth it. And there ARE alternative energy technologies sufficient to power us. Ask TX, which just approved $4.6B transmission lines to carry wind power from west TX to the metropolises in East, and already has billions invested in the technology. Solar power technology has vastly improved as well, and I could cite quite a few cities in Europe that are using vast amounts of it. Global warming is real (acc to thousands of scientists at the best universities in the world, the ones who haven't gotten their degrees at "bible colleges" [to quote a journalist], or who haven't been paid off to be a unruly dissidents), and every progressive state in the US and country in this world has an action plan. My university has a vice chancellor of sustainability and is part of a consortium of hundreds of colleges working for sustainability. I'm personally pretty involved in these endeavors at school and in DC.

I'll get off my soapbox.

Instead of spewing typical liberal talking points that are propaganda and have no facts to back them up, how about just saying something like "Drilling is out of the question because cheaper oil is not worth the possibility of damaging our precious landscapes or wildlife, and we need to cut fossil fuel use because of global warming, and high gas prices are the best thing to make that happen."

Everybody knows that 20 years figure is false (it seems like it keeps getting longer by the week). Oil companies say they could start pumping oil within 6-8 years, which is a heck of a lot better than the 30 years it would take to transition to an alternative fuel, and that is if we had something viable to start the transition today. Oil could be flowing in 3 years if it wasn't for government restrictions. Had we started drilling in 2001, we would have that oil now. If something like Bush lifting the ban on offshore drilling can cause oil to plummet by $16/barrel, just think what 3-5 million new barrels onto the market would do. The speculators that have bid the price up would bid it down because they would know there is a comfortable supply. Alternative fuels are the long-term goals, but its just that - long-term. We need relief in the near and mid-term if our society is to survive.