Climate change: Dickering with chemistry and physics ...and losing badly.

Redrum, you and I agree on many things. From many of your posts, I think our biggest difference is you feel there are some massive conspiracies that are behind all of this, and I feel they come about due to not understanding the world around us, mixed with extreme greed.

We both believe that the free market system is the best that has been invented, for raising more people above poverty than any other system.

I liked the video, they are my sentiments as well.

Another thing on cheap energy. Remember the scare that we have heard since the '70s that we will soon reach the magical point in oil production where the amount of production will begin to slow as oil reserves are used up (peak production)?

About 5 years ago, I was on a business trip in Houston working with a well completions engineer at Chevron. We were working on developing software that would allow them to better prepare well completions to have the best return possible on the amount of oil being taken from reservoirs.

I don't remember what started on specific conversation, but I remember remarking that we needed to find better energy resources because "everyone knows" that the amount of oil available is finite and we would be looking at serious problems if we never came up with a better, cheaper source. I asked him how long he thought we had.

He chuckled and told me that conventional wisdom ain't all that wise. He referenced a Russian study of some years ago that was showing that some oilfields were replenishing themselves. There have also been studies (see first link below) based in the US that show the same thing.

While we are wasting our time worrying about wind power and solar collectors that can't possibly maintain our energy requirements because everyone's terrified of a global warming that doesn't exist, we are watching some of our reservoirs refilling.

As the second article states - Russia is going after new oilfields in the Arctic while we sit on our asses and fret about finding new power sources, before their time, trying to force a market for something that isn't ready yet and isn't needed to keep the planet from dying.

Even if abiotic oil generation in the Earth's mantel isn't the reason for some of these fields replenishing, there are more reserves than ever before thought. A decade ago reserves were known to be about 890 million barrels. Today there are 1.1 trillion known reserves. It is estimated that may end up being as high as 3 trillion.
ElQueso said:
Redrum, you and I agree on many things. From many of your posts, I think our biggest difference is you feel there are some massive conspiracies that are behind all of this, and I feel they come about due to not understanding the world around us, mixed with extreme greed.
thanks for the links elqueso, very informative and is also in line with my beliefs.

like you, i am not a believer in peak oil. i am not a believer in a lot of things that are so called "peak". companies, and more specifically cartels or oligarchies, are well known to lie or underestimate the quantity of a certain resource in order to control supply and price.

just think of the diamond monopoly de beers and their well known manipulation on the supply and price fixing of diamonds. many argue that diamonds are not even a precious stone but in reality are only semi-precious.

here's where you and i differ however. i do not believe that you can simply chalk up the hoaxes of global warming, commodities shortages and environmental fear mongering to simple greed and corruption. of course there will always be those special interests for whom money is their god and motivation. think al gore, george soros to name a couple.

i do not believe that ignorance or stupidity plays as large a role as some might think. simply because there's no possible way that the people in power, who are supposedly some of the smartest, most intelligent in the world, can be that stupid. i believe that is a cop out, an all too easy justification and rationalization.

furthermore, they cannot possibly be that stupid when they have people equally as intelligent who are warning and predicting for some time now against our current courses of action. i'll go even further to point out that those who hold a contrarian viewpoint from the mainstream are marginalized, given no voice by the press and even demonized as being conspiracy theorists or kooks when attempting to speak a different viewpoint.

i believe the people in the highest positions of power know exactly what they're doing. you look at the decision making and the actions being taken and you come to the conclusion that it’s almost as if they were trying to destroy our economy and cause crises on purpose.

i believe that the number one overwhelming driving force behind the environmental fear movement is the UN's Agenda 21.

it sounds great on the surface. Who doesn’t agree that we need to take care of our planet, become more sufficient, be kinder to the environment. Unfortunately, like so many other green movements, it has nothing to do with saving the planet. It’s about putting control of natural resources into private hands, reducing global population and destroying our way of life. Terms like “sustainable development” are simply codes for population control. Agenda 21 is and has been a religion for the ultra-power elite who seek to destroy the middle class and first world economies in order to form a one world government.

Have a read, watch the video and let’s continue to discuss:

The UN Plan For Running The World: Global Carbon Taxes, Global Safety Nets And A One World Green Economy

Rosa Koire: U.N. Agenda 21

Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot

Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State

United Nations Soft-Kill Depopulation Agenda Exposed with Jurriaan Maessen

Read about Maurice Strong:

Maurice Strong Interview (BBC, 1972)

The U.N.'s Man of Mystery
Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”