How do the liberals or Democrats on this board view oil prices?

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

I recently read an article in Scientific American that said we could be on solar energy alone in around thirty years (I think), if we were to commit to it.

I know there are glenn beck fans here. Did anyone see the hour that Ray Kurzweil was on? He talked about us being 5-8 years fron the solar technology to do this. Of course, the infrastructure has to be built to manage it.

This is what really angers me. It seems like we are at a point where the technology is in place or soon to be. Solar, hydrogen stations, clean coal, shale.... And there are ample resources to manage our needs today. ANWR, OCS, Green River Basin... But there are no leaders putting it together. This seems like one of the few things that leadership on a Federal level is needed. Instead we get this ridiculous corn to ethanol program that's putting more pressure on our economy and a bunch of ubber-Rich Congressmen that don't really care what you have to pay for gas and heating oil.

I just don't get it. I think everyone has some sort of idea of what we are capable of doing wth energy - but its like there are people in power that are just blind to it all. It's odd to say the least.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just came over on drudgereport:

YouTube - Harry Reid Says "Coal Makes Us Sick"

Harry Reid saying oil and coal makes us sick.

This is EXACTLY was I was talking about with my original question. Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader. Reid is about as "important" as they come in DC.

Reid said "Oil and Coal are ruining our World." Does he care that heating oil will be $850 a tank next winter? Record-High Home Heating Oil Costs Forecast Next Winter -- Courant.com
Does he care that $4-$5 gas is crippling personal economies? It doesn't seem that way.

I understand that he's at a solar plant and he's talking about the energy of the future. That's great, but what is important right now is the price today and the next few years.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It just fits the profile I have in my head that none of these guys really cares about the energy needs of this country.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Well, burning coal and whatnot does lead to carbon emissions, and without putting them underground, they do raise the overall level of carbon in the atmosphere. We know that carbon traps radiation, so if you have more carbon in the atmosphere, then you have more radiation trapped at and around the surface of the planet. A change in our environment is bound to be uncomfortable (to say the least), given that we have adapted ourselves to the status quo.

That all seems kinda abstract and "there not here", whereas the price of gas seems very concrete, but the effects of global warming will soon seem very concrete if carbon emissions go unchecked. Those too will get blamed on environmentalists in a bit of unintentional irony: "we could stop these insect infestations and not have this food shortage, but the environmentalists outlawed all our best pesticides." The psychological term for that is, I think, "cognitive dissonance."

Originally Posted by Van002

Based on this alone, we will still have major oil problems in about 10 years so I assume you are all for drilling to get the price down until the alternative sources arrive?

I say we increase refining capacity first, and then open stuff up for drilling. Not much point in the later without the former. Now, I doubt oil companies are going to want to build more refineries due to the dubious prospect of a return on investment; which gets blamed on environmental restrictions, despite such things being only part of the equation. In fact, oil companies benefit from high oil prices and have invested in alternative energy (kudos to them on that), so it kinda behooves them to not build refineries.

I would say that the state should just build some refineries, but we might as well put that money towards energy-producing infrastructure that will payoff for a longer period of time (pretty much what oil companies are doing right now). Then again, if opening up ANWR and the like to drilling is the step that needs to be taken to convince absolutely everyone that we have no choice but to invest in alternative energy, then maybe it would be worthwhile, despite all my hesitations.

[Van002]

I say we increase refining capacity first, and then open stuff up for drilling

Obviously, we have to do both.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

Well, burning coal and whatnot does lead to carbon emissions, and without putting them underground, they do raise the overall level of carbon in the atmosphere. We know that carbon traps radiation, so if you have more carbon in the atmosphere, then you have more radiation trapped at and around the surface of the planet. A change in our environment is bound to be uncomfortable (to say the least), given that we have adapted ourselves to the status quo.

Global Warming = hoax.

2,000 IPCC "scientists" claiming it is real. Few were actually involved in environmental sciences. Of those 2,000, many only support part of the Global Warming theory, not its entirety, and some have even had to threaten a lawsuit against them, and the UN, to have their names removed.

Compared to the 30,000+ scientists who claim the global warming theory is a hoax, or at a minimum, built on poor "science". Most of them are actually involved in the environmental sciences.

Fact: The earth has been in a cooling period since 1998(?).
Fact: The oceans are a better regulator of global temperature increases than air patterns. And the oceans actually have been cooling. Ideas from those 'scientists' as to the cause? "We just don't know how to read a thermometer..."

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

I say we increase refining capacity first, and then open stuff up for drilling. Not much point in the later without the former. Now, I doubt oil companies are going to want to build more refineries due to the dubious prospect of a return on investment; which gets blamed on environmental restrictions, despite such things being only part of the equation. In fact, oil companies benefit from high oil prices and have invested in alternative energy (kudos to them on that), so it kinda behooves them to not build refineries.

Why not both at the same time?

Cause, you must realize, it takes time to build the drills and such, then to get the pumps working. Get started now on that while you are fixing the refineries, making them more efficient and more "globally friendly".

BTW...big oil is just one aspect of "big energy". They don't care which way it goes. You cut oil, you only supply them $$$ for solar/wind/wave/hydro power. They get a payday either way.

(but your view on this is surprisingly non-liberal. You must realize that it isn't conservatives who are suing every single attempt to fix refineries, or drill. And if you look at the roll call for any proposal to drill offshore, or in ANWAR, or anywhere else, you will see that it is vastly the democrat/liberal who opposes any such move.)

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

I would say that the state should just build some refineries, but we might as well put that money towards energy-producing infrastructure that will payoff for a longer period of time (pretty much what oil companies are doing right now). Then again, if opening up ANWR and the like to drilling is the step that needs to be taken to convince absolutely everyone that we have no choice but to invest in alternative energy, then maybe it would be worthwhile, despite all my hesitations.

So, tell us...

How much oil is there? (hint: Nobody knows).
So you assume that it will run out early, and therefore the benefit of today is not going to be worth it in the long run.

So why not a balanced energy plan. Still keep investing time and effort into "clean" sources, or at least "alternative" sources (as some bio-fuels put almost as much carbon in the atmosphere as fossil fuels), while at the same time using what we have currently?

Then again, such practicality rarely comes forward from many people...

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by Elf1

Global Warming = hoax.

Originally Posted by Elf1

Compared to the 30,000+ scientists who claim the global warming theory is a hoax, or at a minimum, built on poor "science". Most of them are actually involved in the environmental sciences.

The majority of scientists who specialize in climate change agree with the IPCC ( source). A number like "30,000+ scientists," is pretty meaningless without knowing how many scientists there are in total. As far as I know, the majority of those scientists could be employed by industries that would be harmed by legislation designed to prevent global warming, or the number could be made up or misprinted and then spread because of its appeal to skeptics like yourself. What matters are the facts, not consensus, and I think the case for global warming is very strong.

Originally Posted by Elf1

Fact: The earth has been in a cooling period since 1998(?).

The temperature is going to fluctuate up and down in the short term.

Edit: I just read that 1998 was the warmest year on record except for 2005, according to NASA, so using that year as a starting point with which to extrapolate a trend is misleading.

Fact: The oceans are a better regulator of global temperature increases than air patterns. And the oceans actually have been cooling. Ideas from those 'scientists' as to the cause? "We just don't know how to read a thermometer..."

Actually, the oceans are warming and rising. Your information comes from a 2006 study that has since been corrected by the authors, after they discovered that some of their temperature-measuring floats had been measuring at the wrong depths, and thus were skewing the data ( source).

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

The majority of scientists who specialize in climate change agree with the IPCC ( source). A number like "30,000+ scientists," is pretty meaningless without knowing how many scientists there are in total. As far as I know, the majority of those scientists could be employed by industries that would be harmed by legislation designed to prevent global warming, or the number could be made up or misprinted and then spread because of its appeal to skeptics like yourself. What matters are the facts, and I think the case for global warming is very strong.

Let me ask you...

How sound is the science when you start with the answer, and then tailor everything around you to fit your answer?

Ever been to the IPCC website? Read its mission statement? That organization has the same bias as big oil. And as a liberal, what would be your comment about any study that was bought and paid for by "big oil" regarding global warming?

(funny how the criticisms only flow one way on issues like that...).

As for your link...did you even read it? And if so, do you even understand what it states?

How about this for opposition...Global Warming Petition Project

Perhaps we should now compare the 2,000 scientists in the IPCC and their degrees versus the 30,000 scientists on the other side?

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

The temperature is going to fluctuate up and down in the short term.

Actually, the oceans are warming and rising. Your information comes from a 2006 study that has since been corrected by the authors, after they discovered that some of their temperature-measuring floats had been measuring at the wrong depths, and thus were skewing the data ( source).

Temperature will fluctuate up and down short term.

But is not 10 years a long enough time period?

How much time is enough?

Or should we all just rely on the data that global warming scientists want us to accept, which primarily starts at 1953?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by Elf1

How sound is the science when you start with the answer, and then tailor everything around you to fit your answer?

Originally Posted by Elf1

Ever been to the IPCC website? Read its mission statement? That organization has the same bias as big oil. And as a liberal, what would be your comment about any study that was bought and paid for by "big oil" regarding global warming?

The mission statement of the IPCC says that they seek to assess the data on human-induced climate change in an objective manner. How does that indicate a bias? It says specifically that they are policy-neutral.

Originally Posted by Elf1

As for your link...did you even read it? And if so, do you even understand what it states?

Yeah, I read it. It says, amongst other things, that the majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human-induced global warming is happening.

Originally Posted by Elf1

Perhaps we should now compare the 2,000 scientists in the IPCC and their degrees versus the 30,000 scientists on the other side?

As if the 2,000 scientists that compose the IPCC compose the entire body of scientists who agree that human-induced global warming is happening? Just so you know, nobody starts a petition when their views are the same as the consensus view within the scientific community. What would be the point when you could just point to journal articles and the positions of various national academies of sciences to demonstrate what the consensus view is?

Originally Posted by Elf1

But is not 10 years a long enough time period?

Other than 2005, 1998 was the hottest year on record. So using that year as a starting point with which to extrapolate a trend causes you to get misleading data.

Originally Posted by Elf1

Or should we all just rely on the data that global warming scientists want us to accept, which primarily starts at 1953?

I imagine you can start with almost any year other than recent and unusually warm ones like 1998 and find a warming trend. It sure looks that way on graphs.

[MenInTights]

I think politicians that put the global warming fight ahead of the energy crisis are waaaayyy out of touch (Harry Reid). Global Warming (if it exist) will fix itself in 50 years when we are all getting our energy from nuclear, solar and the like.

The problem is whats going on now. Billions of dollars are flying out of the country to buy oil from unstable regions. When/If Iran jacks oil to $300 or If/when our dollar collapses, nobody is going to really care about a few specs of carbon in the air.

[fleinn]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

Yeah, I read it. It says, amongst other things, that the majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human-induced global warming is happening.

Mm. It's been a long time since the question changed from whether global warming is happening or not, and to what degree we are influencing the warming.

Strange how that somehow end up being so controversial, and contested.. It's just data - we know the mean temperature is rising, and we know that's going to cause more unstable weather. No question about it. What's left is to figure out if mother Earth has had it with us, or whether we're just crapping too much in our pants.

Not that anyone can predict the future, of course - think about if the increased greenhous gas- emissions would end up stabilising some natural trend that otherwise would've caused even more extreme weather- patterns. That would've been undeserved, to say the least.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by fleinn

think about if the increased greenhous gas- emissions would end up stabilising some natural trend that otherwise would've caused even more extreme weather- patterns

I say we cross that bridge when and if we come to it. Also, science is pretty much the art of predicting the future, as scientific theories tend to be accepted or rejected on the basis of their degree of predictive utility.