Normality again

mumhaabu

Oil is heading down where it belongs and today Brent Crude went under $50 for the first time in over 3 years. It shows how wrong the Green Lobby are Oil is not running out just yet and Peak Oil is still a long way off. Yes Oil is finite but there is at least over 50 years supply left in the ground and massive sums have been invested in finding new sources.

The notion that Oil was evil and the green madness that we should all curtail our lifestyles to stop some dreamed up idea of Global Warming is also quickly being proved incorrect. Over the last three years all the hedge funds and smart people with money were pumping literally trillions of dollars into Oil stocks and hedge betting on the price the effect was they rapidly protected themselves from the collapsing economy in general and caused an eldorado of Oil which saw the bubble bursting at over $147/barrell. The Oil crisis was caused the free market reacting and the unrestricted flow of capital into the Bull Market. The price spikes was not caused about supply fears or it runnign out.

We now have the situation where due to the Oil Crisis and Sub-Prime Lending Crisis in America that the world is heading backwards at a rapid rate and alot of this is caused by the leftist green lobby and their constant cries of Armaggadeon and Oil will be gone very soon. The smart investors and bankers naturally lapped this up and the liberal media and Al Gore spun Peak Oil and the Saudi's were laughing all the way to the World Bank.

To sum it up what I am trying to say is Oil Prices are now stable and the World Economic Crisis (The worst since the 19th Century) sees Enviornementalists and the Green Lobby bearing a large share of the blame from it. The rest of the blame goes to the PC Brigade which saw their communist vision see wreckless lending to the least well off in Society in an attempt to make some sort of Capitalist Socialist Utopia of Equality.

Take Solace Greenies that thanks to your work we now have millions out of work and Co2 Emmissions falling rapidly due to lack of Business. However the Enviornement will suffer worst as people will plunder it as there will be nothing else left to make a living out of!

Your Opinions please???

P. Breathnach

My opinion is that you are trolling.

mumhaabu

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My opinion is that you are trolling.

My Opinion is that and no one can argue with the logic, attack the facts not the poster.

P. Breathnach

mumhaabu wrote: »

My Opinion is that and no one can argue with the logic, attack the facts not the poster.

I didn't attack the poster; I opined that a particular post was an exercise in trolling.

As for attacking the "facts", I simply don't accept some of what you put forward as facts. And I sure as hell don't think the tone of your first post was an honest effort to engender a balanced and reflective discussion.

silverharp

mumhaabu wrote: »

Oil is heading down where it belongs and today Brent Crude went under $50 for the first time in over 3 years. It shows how wrong the Green Lobby are Oil is not running out just yet and Peak Oil is still a long way off. Yes Oil is finite but there is at least over 50 years supply left in the ground and massive sums have been invested in finding new sources.

Your Opinions please???

Peak Oil is not about oil running out, it was firstly about a peak in conventional oil which I believe was 2005, to be followed by a peak in total oil output anytime between this year and the next 5 years. From what I understand about the industry new oil is more expensive to bring on line and existing depletion of reserves is anything from 5%/9%, now the interesting bit, we are at the end of a generational credit bubble which could lead to a 20 year bear market for commodities and financial assets. So PO could be a mute point because if demand falls faster then supply then prices will stay low, maybe $20 oil will be the new $10 oil from the 80's

it is an observation that an interest in green issues tends to coincide with high commodity prices so no doubt green issues will go off the radar duing a contraction, Bob Prechter for instance uses Socioeconomics to show such links and it makes good reading, people do tend towards herd behaviour or group think so it is normally good to be looking at other opinions if there is screaming consesus where the facts are less then proven in absolute terms, global warming would fall into this category imo.

Macha

Opinion? You're post belongs in the Ignorant Rant Forum.

How do you define what's "normal"? And where is "where it belongs"-where you decide it belongs? As the sig says: the universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition. Who is this "Green Lobby"? Can you show a link to who they are?

Where exactly are you getting the stat that there is 50 years supply left in the ground. Based on what projections for future demand? And the fact that it's there doesn't mean it's going to be cheap or easy to get to.

Do you understand the impact of burning oil on the environment, and people's health, (if you want to be totally anthropocentric about it)? Do you understand the fallacy of constructing your entire economy on an energy source that is finite and the price of which is becoming increasingly volatile?

Do you understand that nobody with a brain is denying that global warming is happening, only it's causes? Actually, can you show where GW is "quickly being proved incorrect"? Do you understand that the argument to change our unsustainable lifestyles is far more complex that just based on the price of oil? It has to do with all resources: water, food, forests, fisheries, etc.

The oil crisis was partly caused by speculation but it was also caused by huge increases in demands by Asian economies. Oh and there's that whole question of OPEC and how they will never let the price go below what suits them-that isn't the market at work. How did the "leftist green lobby" (who are they exactly?) cause the current economic crisis. I would actually love for you to show this. Pff.

Oil prices are stable? You just lost what tiny scrap of credibility you still had. Please, enlighten us and tell us how all those nasty "Environmentalists" (ooh, we get a capital E) and "Green Lobby" made it all happen. PC Brigade? Society (well, at least you acknowledge it exists) Capitalist Socialist Utopia of Equality? I don't know where to start.

Could you actually write something that's based on facts? That would make my brain hurt less when I'm reading you rants.

P. Breathnach

taconnol and silverharp, why are you wasting time on this? It's a troll.

Macha

P. Breathnach wrote: »

taconnol and silverharp, why are you wasting time on this? It's a troll.

Dang - I'm so bad at spotting them.

*Sigh*

*adds mumhaabu to ignore list*

baldieman

taconnol wrote: »

Do you understand that nobody with a brain is denying that global warming is happening, only it's causes? Actually, can you show where GW is "quickly being proved incorrect"? Do you understand that the argument to change our unsustainable lifestyles is far more complex that just based on the price of oil? It has to do with all resources: water, food, forests, fisheries, etc.

.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-601,00.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200839/2119/NASA-reveals-protective-solar-winds-are-weakening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-3.html


Since your the one with the brain, perhaps you should to the research yourself and try to find what may really be going on.

Macha

baldieman wrote: »

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-601,00.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200839/2119/NASA-reveals-protective-solar-winds-are-weakening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-3.html


Since your the one with the brain, perhaps you should to the research yourself and try to find what may really be going on.

Some credible links would be a nice start. Your credibility is now nil after posting these pathetic links.

baldieman

taconnol wrote: »

Some credible links would be a nice start. Your credibility is now nil after posting these pathetic links.

This is the problem with what goes on here. People become entrenched in their position. getting to the bottom of whats going on, learning whats really happening to our climate. Instead, it's like being part of a political party. Simply find ways to criticize the opposition. The facts and truth are irrelevant.
The links I posted are only some of many from people (who have brains) who are critical of the ICCP position on climate change.
The problem with your previous post is you suggest that anyone who opposes your point of view has no brain.
So, assuming you've actually read the links, perhaps we could argue about the issues?

Húrin

baldieman wrote: »

This is the problem with what goes on here. People become entrenched in their position. getting to the bottom of whats going on, learning whats really happening to our climate. Instead, it's like being part of a political party. Simply find ways to criticize the opposition. The facts and truth are irrelevant.

The links I posted are only some of many from people (who have brains) who are critical of the ICCP position on climate change.
The problem with your previous post is you suggest that anyone who opposes your point of view has no brain.
So, assuming you've actually read the links, perhaps we could argue about the issues?

The current incarnation of global warming deniers point out, ad nauseum, that there are still some scientists who dispute the "consensus" about the problem being a man-made one.

That is correct, there are some credible scientists who think that. However, they are in a small minority.

What the current incarnation of global warming deniers, or sceptics, are actually arguing for is for our society to take the enormous risk of assuming the majority of scientific opinion to be wrong, and the sceptical minority to be right.

This approach could surely not pass any reasonable risk assessment, given the catastrophic consequences of losing the gamble.

BendiBus

Húrin wrote: »

What the current incarnation of global warming deniers, or sceptics, are actually arguing for is for our society to take the enormous risk of assuming the majority of scientific opinion to be wrong, and the sceptical minority to be right.

This approach could surely not pass any reasonable risk assessment, given the catastrophic consequences of losing the gamble.

I think this is the key to getting things done - acknowledging the benefits of continuing in our current ways in now way outweighs the risk.

Also, the advantages of the actions of tackling GW are real, even if man-made GW turns out to be wrong. We still end up with cleaner air & cities and greater energy security.

The social & economic benefits of efficient energy consumption and clean domestically sourced energy are there for the taking whether or not CO2 turns out to be a genuine issue.

It's a no-brainer to me.

But calling people "deniers" is a bit emotive and makes a good argument sound like it's coming from a crank.

Húrin

BendiBus wrote: »

But calling people "deniers" is a bit emotive and makes a good argument sound like it's coming from a crank.

They are deniers. But I don't mind if they prefer to be refered to as sceptics.

Saying such words are emotive is just a diversion from the argument about ths issues. The sceptics try to sound victimised by appealing to a false depiction of honest climate activists as fascists.

taconnol wrote: »

Dang - I'm so bad at spotting them.

*Sigh*

*adds mumhaabu to ignore list*

Even if mumhaabu is not deliberately trolling, his arguments are so ignorant and provocative that they do not deserve any response.

ART6

BendiBus wrote: »

I think this is the key to getting things done - acknowledging the benefits of continuing in our current ways in now way outweighs the risk.

Also, the advantages of the actions of tackling GW are real, even if man-made GW turns out to be wrong. We still end up with cleaner air & cities and greater energy security.

Surely that's the whole point. I remain to be convinced that GW is anything more than a natural phenomenon, having read many differing scientific publications, but I am not crazy enough to suggest we therefore ignore it. If we continue with efforts to improve and safeguard the environment then we benefit. If we decide not to do so because we think man made GW is a myth, and it turns out not to be, then we are in deep trouble.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My opinion is that you are trolling.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion tbh.

I can agree with some of the OP's points but not on others.

To instantly accuse someone of trolling is over the top.