What if there is no Global Warming?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

See, made you look!!

I know there are voices, including some here that deny that human activities are making a significant contribution to global warming. I also know that the oil industry in the US lobbies heavily against moves to curtail fossil fuel use.

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a proxy fight that simply ignores the more fundamental and uncontroversial fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Regardless of their contribution to global warming, fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact.

So, are the Global Warming refuseniks also denying that we'll run out of fossil fuels, or do they think we'll run out of them eventually but depletion will occur on a much slower timescale than any voluntary curtailment of use that is being asked for to control global warming, or is that lobby just temporising in the face of the demands to reduce fossil fuel use without any conscious thought about their ultimate finiteness?

Given that oil will run out, don't the giant oil companies have a long term financial incentive to help reduce oil consumption thereby hiking prices and preserving their profitable exploitation of that resource for as long as possible?

30 years ago the oil was going to run out in 30 years. It hasn't yet, but it will do.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
See, made you look!!

I know there are voices, including some here that deny that human activities are making a significant contribution to global warming. I also know that the oil industry in the US lobbies heavily against moves to curtail fossil fuel use.

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a proxy fight that simply ignores the more fundamental and uncontroversial fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Regardless of their contribution to global warming, fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact.

So, are the Global Warming refuseniks also denying that we'll run out of fossil fuels, or do they think we'll run out of them eventually but depletion will occur on a much slower timescale than any voluntary curtailment of use that is being asked for to control global warming, or is that lobby just temporising in the face of the demands to reduce fossil fuel use without any conscious thought about their ultimate finiteness?

Given that oil will run out, don't the giant oil companies have a long term financial incentive to help reduce oil consumption thereby hiking prices and preserving their profitable exploitation of that resource for as long as possible?

30 years ago the oil was going to run out in 30 years. It hasn't yet, but it will do.

Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?

Anthropogenic global warming:

Claim: The global mean temperature is increasing.
Response: There is some evidence that is true over the recent past, but the data is not as precise as inferred and mean global temperatures rise and fall anyway. (there is still no satisfactory explanation why global temperatures were falling from the 1940s until the 1980s. In all, the evidence is not particularly strong that we are witnessing unprecedented temperature changes.

Claim: Human activities increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is the cause of rising temperatures.
Response: This claim stands up only on the evidence of GLobal Climate Models. These models produce such a wide range of results and output that in many important areas is completely contrary to observed data. (e.g. they predict the poles should be warming dramatically, but they are cooling). Moreover, these models are an attempt to proxy climatic interactions, but these are far to complex for us to do so. (hence the weak results).

Claim: We need to reduce CO2 emissions to avert global disaster.
Response.: Again these claims rest on model output alone (see above). Even worse, these models are pumped with ludicrously pessimistic assumption about CO2 emissions (see Henderson).
Secondly they are based onvarious studies of local impacts of "climate change", but our ability to predict localised change is far far worse than our inability to predict global trends. Third, there is never proper consideration of cost. The cost of Kyoto alone is estimated to be thousands of billions of Dollars in todays terms. Kyoto's proponents even admit that the impact of adhering to Kyoto would not even be discernable. Lets spens our money on more important things like getting clean water to the people who need it or eradicate unecessary diseases in poor countries.


That is that. Nothing more.


Running out of fossil fuels.

I would make the same demands of you that I would to Andrew Wakefield on the issue of MMR causing autism. You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

[RamblingOnwards]

If we're talking about fossil fuels purely as an energy source, then the 'running out' will be a non event - s it becomes more and more expensive to extract fossil fuels (since the cheap sources are tapped first), use of them for energy will become more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, the alternate sources will become cheaper in comparison. At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.

Spot on.


Drooper
Great post. :D


Well. i would love to have something else to contribute... but.. Well. you two just said it all :D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
If we're talking about fossil fuels purely as an energy source, then the 'running out' will be a non event - s it becomes more and more expensive to extract fossil fuels (since the cheap sources are tapped first), use of them for energy will become more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, the alternate sources will become cheaper in comparison. At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.


.... which isn't necessarily a good thing. Energy is, figuratively and almost literally, the fuel for the global economy. The reason that the "alternative" fuel sources aren't currently used is because they're expensive -- and raising the price of fossil fuel to be even more expensive will not by itself drop the price of hydrogen, or solar power, or unobtainium, at all.

Many activities that are practical and even profitable with the current price of oil will no longer be, which will have substantial effects. Just as a simple example, consider commuting distance. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-29-commute_x.htm) describes "the fastest-growing segment of commuters" in the United States, those who drive ninety minutes or more to get to work. In some cases, that's 400+ miles per day, probably taking 15+ (US) gallons of gasoline. At $2 per gallon, that would cost $600/month in fuel alone. If fuel rose to $5/gallon, that would cost $1500, or nearly $20,000 per year. A much smaller number of people would be able to afford this -- the bedroom communities such as the Lehigh Valley (near New York City), Dulles, VA (near Washington, DC) or Palmdale (near Los Angeles) would collapse unless people make major investments in transportation infrastructure.

So "global warming" isn't necessary for people to be concerned about the long-term effects of oil consumption.

[TobiasTheViking]

new drkitten
Well, true.. shifting to alternative energy will have an impact on the economy..

But, postponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time. That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.

It will also make the point when it is economically feasible to change happen sooner.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
[P]ostponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time.


Yup.

That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.


And in many cases, for "cheaper" read "available in practice." If we were to run out of oil tomorrow, for example, we do have examples of practical electric cars available. Had we run out of oil ten years ago, that wouldn't have been the case, and our "alternative transportation methods" would have had unbelievably high costs. Similarly, if oil and coal run out tomorrow, we literally don't have the infrastructure to replace the energy they generate, by any alternative method, and it remains an open question whether there are alternative methods available that could generate the necessary power, even if the infrastructure were wished into existence. (For example, it takes more energy, using current technology, to create a solar cell than a solar cell will typically generate in its life. Every solar cell manufactured is a net loss on planet's energy budget.) Twenty years from now, if/when fusion research finally achieves breakeven, the situation will be different.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?


Oh, for pity's sake, get a sense of humour and get over yourself.

Why did I link the topics? Read the post. The solution proposed to both problems is to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and find replacements. They have their solutions in common. For some reason only Global Warming is being discussed, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it had not been heard of but the finiteness of fossil fuel reserves drove a lot of the environmental agenda.

Now, if you'd like to apologise and answer more reasonably I'd be grateful.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
Claim: The global mean temperature is increasing.
Response: There is some evidence that is true over the recent past, but the data is not as precise as inferred and mean global temperatures rise and fall anyway.

If you wish to descend from your high horse for a moment, you might want to confirm the difference between inferred and implied. Do you really mean that the data are inferred?

Originally posted by Drooper
You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

Oh, I don't know, the finite size of the planet? All I said was finite. I did not suggest a timescale. A reasonable answer might have included a consideration of that. I simply do not know what the various views currently are.

Before you launch into ridiculous attack mode again, you might want to consider how your answer would read to someone who ventured onto this forum not expecting to be set upon by the local junkyard dogs.

I asked a simple set of questions, it would be nice to see answers that avoid self-aggrandising polemic.

[Bikewer]

Diane Rehm had a show on this very topic this morning. The primary guest was pointing out that the impact of sharply increased prices for fossil fuel may well be quite a blow to the world's economies, and very little appears to be happening to adress it.

He pointed out that energy-policy drafts being prepared by both the House and the Senate have essentially nothing to say about decreasing consumption.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The point is that it doesnt matter if there is global warming or not. Some technologies are unfriendly to the environment. Thats idiotic, absurd, lame, you name it. Still, some groups of humans will not discontinue its use because, for them, economic interests are stronger than any other thing in this world.

Besides, anyone with enough power and money can buy whatever results they want. As climate science is not an exact science, they can manipulate the studies to "demonstrate" whatever they need, in order to continue their business model.

On another area, thats what happens to the RIAA, as long as they can continue to make money, why on earth should they allow other models for the artists to reach their public?

Certainly the problem is complex, but as I said, it should not be matter of if it is happening or not, but about how idiotic is to continue to use some kind of technologies, specially if now we can have alternatives that are friendlier to our planet.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Still, some groups of humans will not discontinue its use because, for them, economic interests are stronger than any other thing in this world.

This is as things should be... competition for scarse resourses. It actually drives us toward efficiency.


Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Certainly the problem is complex, but as I said, it should not be matter of if it is happening or not, but about how idiotic is to continue to use some kind of technologies, specially if now we can have alternatives that are friendlier to our planet.

Not idiotic... all technological advancement takes time. Were steam locomotives builders stupid? No, while alternatives existed, they weren't feasible on a large scale yet. Now they are (por ejemplo, diesel/electric), and we're moving towards even better techs (say, maglev).

I understand your frustration, but you should understand that people aren't always concerned with maximum efficiency or environmental friendliness. They are mostly concerned with surviving and making babies.

This is an OK situation. Growing populations demand efficiency and advancement, which ultimately drives us forward technologically.

Have we done damage to the environment? Sure, but it's nowhere near the doomsday scenario that many extreme environmentalists would have you believe. In fact, we're getting better in many cases. I live in LA, and the air is noticably cleaner in the last 20 years, and records show it is FAR better than it was in the 50's, for example.

(As a side note just to annoy folks: We have an alternative to oil for a whole lot of uses... it's called fission and we've had it for 50 years. Politics have curtailed its use, but high oil prices (and safer nuclear technology) are moving us towards it again. This is probably a good thing)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by El_Spectre
[B]This is as things should be... competition for scarse resourses. It actually drives us toward efficiency.

Not idiotic... all technological advancement takes time...

I understand your frustration, but you should understand that people aren't always concerned with maximum efficiency or environmental friendliness. They are mostly concerned with surviving and making babies...

You are right, and I thank you the tone. Yes, Im frustrated about it, and maybe my tone was angry because of that. But as there are individuals (like me) who value other things more than money, there are also others that consider it the most important thing on life. I should learn to deal with that. And also to learn that the world is complex, very complex, and that, sometimes, our personal points of view lack the adecuate perspective to express a more valid opinion.

Thanks for reminding me that.

[Anders]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
new drkitten
Well, true.. shifting to alternative energy will have an impact on the economy..

But, postponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time. That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.

It will also make the point when it is economically feasible to change happen sooner.
Nah, I don't think that changing to any other energy form will change the economy in any major way. "Why, Anders, are you so naive you believe such stupid things?". Well, market economy is the answer. In a truly free market economy, like in the US, UK, and, nah no European countries, the market will switch to the new energy form in a heartbeat. Why? Because the market don't wanna lose any money!

When does the oil price get too high? I wish I knew. Some indications show that that point will be reached in a few decades, other indications show that it will take a few hundred years. Who’s right? I guess time will tell.

But I skeptical to the notion that the oil reserves are replenished.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Anders
Nah, I don't think that changing to any other energy form will change the economy in any major way. "Why, Anders, are you so naive you believe such stupid things?". Well, market economy is the answer. In a truly free market economy, like in the US, UK, and, nah no European countries, the market will switch to the new energy form in a heartbeat. Why? Because the market don't wanna lose any money!


I don't think you understand why the economy will change. It's not the energy transition itself that will change the economy, but the rising price of energy that will force the economy to change. Right now, it's economically viable to live in a suburban area without mass transit -- if energy costs triple, that may no longer be true.

It's similarly economically viable to sell fresh fish (even sushi-grade fish) in non-coastal areas, because it can be air-freighted in from the oceans. This may no longer be the case if the costs of air-freight triples.

Et cetera.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper

Running out of fossil fuels.

I would make the same demands of you that I would to Andrew Wakefield on the issue of MMR causing autism. You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

I'll add a little appeal to authority rather than merely asserting the obvious.

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/2.htm

" It is a finite resource and will, one day, be used up."

No timescale given, by stated to be finite, which was all I was trying to do.

I still haven't received any answers to my original questions. I think what I have received is a parade of hobby horses demonstrating pre-existing positions that are responses to questions I did not ask rather than any attempts to answer the questions that were asked. Might I ask that those are attempted?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Good old Google.

Originally posted by Drooper
Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?

Anthropogenic global warming:

[Doesn't exist]

Running out of fossil fuels.

[Ain't gonna happen]



Pausing only briefly to note that Drooper's answers show exactly the correlation that my OP posited, hence vindicating the linkage of the two issues, I found the following link;

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#c

which states that although oil resources are in strict terms finite, in practical terms they are not.

Would those posters who think that humans are not responsible for an element of global warming also find themselves in agreement with that ncpa policy backgrounder? If so, that would suggest that in answer to my OP's questions it is likely that those who see no reason to conserve fossil fuels because of Global Warming also see no need to do so for the management of the resource either. I wonder if they can explain that spooky coincidence of opinions, while at the same time still share Drooper's surprise that I would suggest they are linked. Intriguingly, Drooper is sort of right, each is not a logical prerequisite for the other, but I do observe that they tend to go hand in hand in politics. I am interested in why they should co-exist like this.

This leads to a corollary to be answered by those same people. If fossil fuels do not cause global warming and there is no practical end to their reserves should we simply be aiming to maximise extraction in order to achieve the most rapid possible expansion of the world economy with untold benefits? Is there no limit to the growth we can achieve while still bound to the Earth's surface?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Oh, for pity's sake, get a sense of humour and get over yourself.

Why did I link the topics? Read the post. The solution proposed to both problems is to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and find replacements. They have their solutions in common. For some reason only Global Warming is being discussed, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it had not been heard of but the finiteness of fossil fuel reserves drove a lot of the environmental agenda.

Now, if you'd like to apologise and answer more reasonably I'd be grateful.

Apologise for what exactly?

You made an absurd claim, in suggesting that we are running out of fossil fuels. Provide something that back up that claim.

You have no trouble requesting the same from people like anti vaxers or homeopaths on issues where you have considerable knowledge and experience, such as vetinary medicine.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I'll add a little appeal to authority rather than merely asserting the obvious.

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/2.htm

" It is a finite resource and will, one day, be used up."

No timescale given, by stated to be finite, which was all I was trying to do.

I still haven't received any answers to my original questions. I think what I have received is a parade of hobby horses demonstrating pre-existing positions that are responses to questions I did not ask rather than any attempts to answer the questions that were asked. Might I ask that those are attempted?

Being finite does mean it will run out.

Iron ore, aluminium, silica, copper etc, etc, etc. There are loads of finite resources that we are using in ever increasing amounts. We are not going to run out of those either.

What you presented was a hobby horse of epithets. Go read your post again. You display some excellent traits of a critical thinker on many issues on this forum, but here you are sounding like Interesting Ian.

"So, are the [Global Warming/Paranormal] refuseniks also denying that [we'll run out of fossil fuels/there is no life after death], "

[The Don]

Originally posted by Drooper
You made an absurd claim, in suggesting that we are running out of fossil fuels. Provide something that back up that claim.
Would you agree that the rate at which we are consuming fossil fuels is greater than the rate at which they are being created ?

If you do then we must, by definition, be running out.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Drooper
Being finite does mean it will run out.

Iron ore, aluminium, silica, copper etc, etc, etc. There are loads of finite resources that we are using in ever increasing amounts. We are not going to run out of those either.
Why not ?

Finite resource, positive consumption rate. Sooner or later it's going to run out.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Good old Google.



Pausing only briefly to note that Drooper's answers show exactly the correlation that my OP posited, hence vindicating the linkage of the two issues,

You sound more like interesting Ian with every marginal contribution

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I found the following link;

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#c

which states that although oil resources are in strict terms finite, in practical terms they are not.

NOw why didn't you do that in the first place? And why did you get on you hooby horse when I asked you to provide the evidence for your initial claim, which you have now satisfactorily found counter evidence?


Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Would those posters who think that humans are not responsible for an element of global warming also find themselves in agreement with that ncpa policy backgrounder? If so, that would suggest that in answer to my OP's questions it is likely that those who see no reason to conserve fossil fuels because of Global Warming also see no need to do so for the management of the resource either.

Maybe "those posters" consider the issues and evidence on the subject Anthropogenic Global Warming and draw some conclusions and then seperately consider the issues and evidence on the subject of "Fossil fuel depletion" and reach some conclusions on that.


Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I wonder if they can explain that spooky coincidence of opinions, while at the same time still share Drooper's surprise that I would suggest they are linked.

Try something less spooky and to appreciate this you need to turn the question around. Is there an obvious reason (anecdotal) why "certain people" might by strong proponents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory and also tend to support the myth that we are using up the world's natural resources (especially oil).

Hooraayyy. Yes, its all about politics.

Now here is where you have to be careful, because there is a potential fallacy pit into whic one may fall.

Those of the extreme political right are more likely to be "anti AGW" and "pro oil". Hence anyone who is "anti AGW" and "pro oil" reached their opinions due to their political persuasion.

And we can play that both ways.

Those of the extreme political left are more likely to be "pro AGW" and "anti oil". Hence anyone who is "anti AGW" and "pro oil" reached their opinions due to their political persuasion.

What to do? I have an idea. Let's discuss the data, evidence, issues and not try to make tenuous link between issues and people's positions on those issues.

I claim that is what I did in my first post. I presented responses to standard AGW claims and then asked you for the evidence that we are running out of fossil fuels. No epithets, no insults, no insuation.

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Intriguingly, Drooper is sort of right, each is not a logical prerequisite for the other, but I do observe that they tend to go hand in hand in politics. I am interested in why they should co-exist like this.

Don't go there. There be logical fallacies, there be. (see above)

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
This leads to a corollary to be answered by those same people. If fossil fuels do not cause global warming and there is no practical end to their reserves should we simply be aiming to maximise extraction in order to achieve the most rapid possible expansion of the world economy with untold benefits? Is there no limit to the growth we can achieve while still bound to the Earth's surface?

OK now we've shifted the issue.

I can give you chapter and verse on eonomic growth. It is not as you appear to perceive it. The rate at which we extract and employ resources, such as oil, is a function of the capacity of the economy to expand, not the reverse as you imply here.

In other words. If you happened to be king of the world and the economy was centrally planned (remember nobody orders oil to be extracted at certain rates, it is just done to demand at prevailing and expected costs and market prices) and said "extract all the oil", you would just be left with lots and lots of surplus oil.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by The Don
Why not ?

Finite resource, positive consumption rate. Sooner or later it's going to run out.

Read about Malthus.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
Being finite does mean it will run out.

Yes it does unless it is being made faster than we are using it. The question is solely one of timescale: long or short.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Yes it does unless it is being made faster than we are using it. The question is solely one of timescale: long or short.

My bad [typing] Of course that should have read "does NOT mean it will run out".

Of course I don't think we'll be using a lot of oil in 100 years time and it ain't going to runn out in that time scale.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper

What you presented was a hobby horse of epithets.


I have no settled view on these issues. Bizarrely enough that was why my OP created questions. All I did was lay out some of the arguments and ask for information. So far all I have received is polemic.

As part of that polemic I have been told that a finite resource will never run out. This is curious.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
And why did you get on you hooby horse when I asked you to provide the evidence for your initial claim, which you have now satisfactorily found counter evidence?

As I have already explained, I can't get on my hobby horse about this because I don't have one. I really was looking for information and really am undecided on these issues.

Originally posted by Drooper

Hooraayyy. Yes, its all about politics.


OK now we've shifted the issue.



If you read the OP, it was about the motivations of people holding the views I was describing. So, no shift of issues. It was probably a question of politics from the outset. Here, let me parse the OP for you;

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
See, made you look!!

Jokey intro

I know there are voices, including some here that deny that human activities are making a significant contribution to global warming. I also know that the oil industry in the US lobbies heavily against moves to curtail fossil fuel use.

Uncontestable facts

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a proxy fight that simply ignores the more fundamental and uncontroversial fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource.

Statement of my opinion based on observation coupled with fact that the resources are finite. You have now mooted an idea that demand will decline so that the reserves will asymptote to a non-zero value. I'd like to see some substantiation of that

Regardless of their contribution to global warming, fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact.

See above based on finiteness versus continued use. See above

So, are the Global Warming refuseniks also denying that we'll run out of fossil fuels, or do they think we'll run out of them eventually but depletion will occur on a much slower timescale than any voluntary curtailment of use that is being asked for to control global warming, or is that lobby just temporising in the face of the demands to reduce fossil fuel use without any conscious thought about their ultimate finiteness?

Do I really have to use smileys every time I use a funny word? Notwithstanding the absence of smileys, this is asking someone who does not believe in GW to explain how that relates to a disbelief in the need to conserve fossil fuels to preserve stocks given taht both views are, in my experience, typically held by the same people at the same time

Given that oil will run out, don't the giant oil companies have a long term financial incentive to help reduce oil consumption thereby hiking prices and preserving their profitable exploitation of that resource for as long as possible?

Reasonable question based on its initial premise. So far not answered

30 years ago the oil was going to run out in 30 years.

Simple observation, which also accords with what I found being reported in that ncpa briefing. In other words, before you started accusing me of being on a hobby horse against your view, I was already taking as read that for some reason the horizon of oil depletion seems to be receding

It hasn't yet, but it will do.

Based on its finiteness and unless you can prove that demand will decline this is simply true. See previous comments.




Better. :)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I have no settled view on these issues. Bizarrely enough that was why my OP created questions. All I did was lay out some of the arguments and ask for information. So far all I have received is polemic.

As part of that polemic I have been told that a finite resource will never run out. This is curious.

You presented claims:

Given that oil will run out...

I asked for evidence:

You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

Where is the polemic? You keep adding fuel to this by making additonal unsubstantiated claims in every post.

And could you point out where exactly I say that "finite resources will never run out"

[Rolfe]

BSM, old chap, just be glad you haven't got Diamond and some of his other mates in here as well. Look what happened to me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870758722#post1870758722) when I tried to find out what the actual arguments of the global warning deniers were. (That post is the start of a pretty unedifying spat which got nobody anywhere.)

I don't think it's possible to have a rational discussion about this subject on this forum, and perhaps anywhere.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
And could you point out where exactly I say that "finite resources will never run out"

It's a necessary implication of what you have said.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
As I have already explained, I can't get on my hobby horse about this because I don't have one. I really was looking for information and really am undecided on these issues.



If you read the OP, it was about the motivations of people holding the views I was describing. So, no shift of issues. It was probably a question of politics from the outset. Here, let me parse the OP for you;



Better. :)

No really.

You said:fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact

How is that a fact?

You said:
Given that oil will run out

A statement of claimed fact. And used that as a premise to pose a question that you say I haven't answered. Why bother answering a question based on false premise?

You said:
It hasn't yet, but it will do.

Statement of fact, which is incorrect.


And as for this smilie business. No, you don't have to use a smilie every time you say something. But neither will the use of a smilie successfully disguise the use of ad hominem to colour people who hold a particular point of view on a particular subject.


You may not being robustly countered on you claims here, or havnig flaws in your logic poiinted out, but you are not alone in this area. Nowhere did I post anything that merits a response that you gave here:

Now, if you'd like to apologise and answer more reasonably I'd be grateful

In fact that shoe is on the other foot, as here:

Oh, for pity's sake, get a sense of humour and get over yourself.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Rolfe
BSM, old chap, just be glad you haven't got Diamond and some of his other mates in here as well. Look what happened to me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870758722#post1870758722) when I tried to find out what the actual arguments of the global warning deniers were. (That post is the start of a pretty unedifying spat which got nobody anywhere.)

I don't think it's possible to have a rational discussion about this subject on this forum, and perhaps anywhere.

Rolfe.

You seem to shift the goalpost on what you perceive as rational, given that this is what you contributed in the very thread you quote here:
it appears to me that the global-warming-denialists look like wish-fulfillment fantasists who either don't want to have to change their lifestyles, or simply can't cope with the implications about what's very likely to be the medium-term future for humanity.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
How is that a fact?


"Statement of my opinion based on observation coupled with fact that the resources are finite. You have now mooted an idea that demand will decline so that the reserves will asymptote to a non-zero value. I'd like to see some substantiation of that"

I can't believe I seem to be conversing with someone who cannot see any end to the supply of oil, but that is what is happening.

I have said elsewhere already that there are a couple of get-outs from the idea that we will run out of oil. Please state explicitly which it is: is oil infinite or will we stop using it?

As to my evidence that it will run out: 1. we are using it and 2. I don't know of mechanisms creating it faster than we are using it, but enlighten me, perhaps it is being made sufficiently fast somewhere.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Drooper
You seem to shift the goalpost on what you perceive as rational, given that this is what you contributed in the very thread you quote here:

Not that Rolfe needs me to carry her bags on this, but what you quoted was not irrational. It was emotive. But, it was a fair reporting of her personal observations of those who deny the existence of human-influenced global warming. It might offend, but it does not offend logic.

Being irrational (http://dict.die.net/irrational/) would require the assertion that a finite entity will not be ultimately be depleted by consumption without advancing any mechanism by which it would be replenished or showing that the consumption must necessarily cease before the entity is completely depleted.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
"Statement of my opinion based on observation coupled with fact that the resources are finite. You have now mooted an idea that demand will decline so that the reserves will asymptote to a non-zero value. I'd like to see some substantiation of that"


Actually, this is fairly easy to substantiate, and largely irrelevant. Oil will only be used as long as it is more cost-effective than other equivalent goods; if we were to see (for example), a substantial drop in the cost of wind-based electricity, people would start using wind power instead of oil-based electricity, which would reduce the use of oil and hence the rate of consumption. Similarly, as the reserves dwindle, the decreasing supply will raise the cost until it becomes less expensive to use wind-based power -- this will probably happen at some point before the reserves actually dwindle to zero.

As an analogy, consider the fact that there are still whales left. The demand for whale oil has essentially vanished, because whale oil is more expensive than petroleum. But we haven't run out of whales.

On the other hand, whether the reserves left are zero or a number too small to be cost-effective to pump is largely irrelevant to the larger question of what we are going to do when the economically viable reserves have dropped to zero -- which is (provably) going to happen.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Actually, this is fairly easy to substantiate, and largely irrelevant. Oil will only be used as long as it is more cost-effective than other equivalent goods; if we were to see (for example), a substantial drop in the cost of wind-based electricity, people would start using wind power instead of oil-based electricity, which would reduce the use of oil and hence the rate of consumption. Similarly, as the reserves dwindle, the decreasing supply will raise the cost until it becomes less expensive to use wind-based power -- this will probably happen at some point before the reserves actually dwindle to zero.

As an analogy, consider the fact that there are still whales left. The demand for whale oil has essentially vanished, because whale oil is more expensive than petroleum. But we haven't run out of whales.

On the other hand, whether the reserves left are zero or a number too small to be cost-effective to pump is largely irrelevant to the larger question of what we are going to do when the economically viable reserves have dropped to zero -- which is (provably) going to happen.

Quibble accepted.

The question is whether "when the economically viable reserves have dropped to zero" occurs after we don't care any more because we have replaced oil with something else, or whether it occurs right in the middle of us still needing loads of it.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by new drkitten
As an analogy, consider the fact that there are still whales left. The demand for whale oil has essentially vanished, because whale oil is more expensive than petroleum. But we haven't run out of whales.



In fact that's a better analogy, I think, than you originally intended because whale species could have gone to extinction had not action been taken for reasons outside their economic value. Economics did not seem to be saving them.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
In fact that's a better analogy, I think, than you originally intended because whale species could have gone to extinction had not action been taken for reasons outside their economic value. Economics did not seem to be saving them.

I'm not entirely sure this is correct. The heyday of whale oil consumption was in the 1850s and thereabouts; the consumption of whale oil had dropped significantly as early as the 1890s, once petroleum (and particularly kerosene) had been developed. In fact, I think that whale oil was actually cheaper, in both real and nominal money, in 1900 than it was in 1820 -- but kerosene was cheaper yet. Whale protection legislation didn't start happening until the 1930s and 40s (for example, the IWC was created in 1946).

I would argue that, in fact, the only reason that whales could be protected at all is because the whaling industry had largely been overtaken by events, and their economic value had dropped to the point where whaling could be foregone without significant consequences.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Drooper

<snip>
Running out of fossil fuels.

I would make the same demands of you that I would to Andrew Wakefield on the issue of MMR causing autism. You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

I am throwing my self into a bees nest here, but what the hell...

I think these (http://www4.tsl.uu.se/isv/UHDSG/) guys got i quite right. But I really don't know. Oh well, that's how science works...

Oh but wait: Those guys most be nitwits, stupid, and and and Swedish, and we swedes don't know sh*t about oil or anything else for that matter.

[Earthborn]

"It is ridiculous to assume that the use of ivory might lead to the extinction of elephants in Africa. If the number of elephants declines, it will be harder to hunt for them and it becomes more and more expensive to produce ivory. As it becomes more expensive, alternatives will become cheaper in comparison. A rather clever chap in Belgium already invented an alternative called 'bakelite' that might be used for billiard balls and piano keys instead of ivory. It is not yet economical to use now, but if ivory becomes more expensive it will be. At some point it will be uneconomical to use ivory, and then we'll stop using ivory."

Funny thing happened in a 100 years or so. It is true, we stopped using ivory for many things it was once used for. It is true that ivory became more and more expensive. Governments started to protect elephants, increasing the price of ivory even further.

But it never became uneconomical to hunt elephants for their tusks. Poachers are now willing to risk being shot on site by government officials to get the ivory. They are willing to do this, because the price they can get for it is higher than ever before. And the price is still increasing, while there are now fewer elephants than when ivory was replaced with artificial substitutes. Extinction may no longer be imminent, but it is still a threat.

The price is high, but there are people willing to pay it.

Claiming that something will at some point be uneconomical assumes that there is a fixed amount that people are willing to pay for a product and that at a higher price people will prefer something cheaper. But it doesn't always work that way. For some products the desire for it depends on the price: the higher the price, the more status it gives the buyer who can afford it, the more the buyer is willing to pay for it.

A product that becomes expensive, can become a status symbol and very desirable. For some products, there is no limit to what people are willing to pay for it, because the more expensive it becomes, the more desirable it is.

Just as it is unknown how much oil actually exists in the ground, it is equally unknown how much people in the future will be willing to pay for it. There may not be a practical limit to either of them. It may be true that if oil becomes more expensive, it will become a status symbol to have a car still guzzling petrol and the rich and famous will be willing to pay such ridiculous amount for it that is still economically viable to pump it up.

We already see something like this happening. It is possible to buy cars that are more economical then ever before, and prices at the pump increase continually (at least in the eyes of the average consumer. Adjusted for inflation it looks quite different) so what do the rich and famous do? They buy Hummers. Increase the price of oil, and it will only be more interesting to waste it: champagne is quite expensive, so what better way to flaunt your wealth than to shake the bottle and pop the cork?

Just because something becomes more expensive does not mean it gets any closer to a point where people are no longer willing to pay the price for it. If the desire for something increases when the price increases and if that thing is a limited resource it is entirely possible that people will use it until it is gone.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Earthborn


But it never became uneconomical to hunt elephants for their tusks. Poachers are now willing to risk being shot on site by government officials to get the ivory. They are willing to do this, because the price they can get for it is higher than ever before. And the price is still increasing, while there are now fewer elephants than when ivory was replaced with artificial substitutes. Extinction may no longer be imminent, but it is still a threat.

The price is high, but there are people willing to pay it.

Claiming that something will at some point be uneconomical assumes that there is a fixed amount that people are willing to pay for a product and that at a higher price people will prefer something cheaper.

Yes. And note that when elephants become extinct, the price of elephant ivory will become infinite, at which point people will by definition prefer something cheaper.