Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Macrobat · Nov 16, 2006, 01:06 PM

and the oil reserves of the United States are potentially increased by 50%.

CGFI: Big Gulf Oil Strike Could Save 100 Million Acres of U.S. Forests

This will probably put a dent in the attempts for alternative fuels, and hopefully one in the US's depedence on foreign sources.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 16, 2006, 01:14 PM

Interesting article, but the right-wing, anti-global-warming FUD-spreadingness negates the effectiveness.

If we are sacrificing our forests to avoid more CO2 out of fear of global warming, understand that the Modern Warming looks like another of the moderate, erratic, natural 1500-year climate cycles. The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us those have been going on for the last one million years.

"LOL." Ahhhh yes. I'd love to the see the scientific work to support that claim.

greg

probablecause · Nov 16, 2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Interesting article, but the right-wing, anti-global-warming FUD-spreadingness negates the effectiveness.

"LOL." Ahhhh yes. I'd love to the see the scientific work to support that claim.

greg

Are you a scientist? If you are, then I guess you could objectively evaluate the scientific method used to come up with this claim.

Macrobat · Nov 16, 2006, 01:27 PM

Nah, he's just one of my (to quote Kevin) "fanboys."

Actually, I heard about the strike on the radio and Googled for a site to post the news here. I would have to agree the reporting on that particular site does lean rather heavily to the right.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 16, 2006, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by probablecause

Are you a scientist? If you are, then I guess you could objectively evaluate the scientific method used to come up with this claim.

Oh, I get it. They get to come up with a claim, and I get to do the background research in order to prove it's a bogus claim. You must be on to something here, because that makes so much sense. Why, the scientific world should work like this, too! Who needs proof for their work?!? Just make everyone else prove your results aren't right! Genius!

[/sarcasm]

greg

Rumor · Nov 16, 2006, 02:02 PM

I guess the article would be relative if anyone used ethanol.

probablecause · Nov 16, 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Interesting article, but the right-wing, anti-global-warming FUD-spreadingness negates the effectiveness.

"LOL." Ahhhh yes. I'd love to the see the scientific work to support that claim.

greg

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Oh, I get it. They get to come up with a claim, and I get to do the background research in order to prove it's a bogus claim. You must be on to something here, because that makes so much sense. Why, the scientific world should work like this, too! Who needs proof for their work?!? Just make everyone else prove your results aren't right! Genius!

[/sarcasm]

greg

Hey, you were the one that said that he would like to see the scientific work to back up their claims.

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 16, 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by probablecause

Hey, you were the one that said that he would like to see the scientific work to back up their claims.

Uhhh...yeah. That means they provide it, not that I go and find it (which is what you suggested). Which is exactly what I said.

Comprehend much?

greg

black bear theory · Nov 19, 2006, 02:49 AM

jack2 will provide at best two more years of oil, and will do little to provide any independance from foriegn oil. hardly a fell swoop. then we're back in the same situation, two more years secure in our thinking that it is not a problem.

greg, don't hold your breath for them to provide any kind of proof or evidence, or at the very least providing links. they royally suck at that. here's the link to the study btw. NCPA | Study #279, The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

ShortcutToMoncton · Nov 19, 2006, 11:35 AM

Very nice. By the article you PM'd me the 1470-year cycles seem less like significant global temperature changes than global temperature fluctuations (or, as the cute analogy went, sloshing the water around in the tub rather than adding water via the tap). Antarctica gradually warms while Greenland is cold, but when Greenland temperatures jump up Antarctica cools down.

The multiple-degree global temperature increases we're expected to see in the next century simply aren't explained by these see-saw cycles which seem to be a distribution, rather than addition, of heat.

greg

Tuoder · Nov 19, 2006, 12:04 PM

The NCPA took an perfectly sound article observing the inverse nature of the ice in Greenland to the the in Antarctica, plugged it into the natural warming cycle, also shown by the study, and drew a false conclusion from it. The NCPA is a group of conservatives, not scientists, ad they should be treated as such.

Helmling · Nov 19, 2006, 06:37 PM

According to the natural cycles, we should be in another glaciation by now. Humans have been warming the planet for as long as we've been farming, but now we're taking it to a whole new level and that has implications for our sustainability--at lease, for the sustainability of our six billions.

Macrobat · Nov 20, 2006, 09:34 AM

Oh yeah, where was that absolutely horrendous and escalating hurricane season we were supposed to have this year?

MacNStein · Nov 20, 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Oh yeah, where was that absolutely horrendous and escalating hurricane season we were supposed to have this year?

Blame it on the dartboard that the "scientific community" uses to make these predictions.

black bear theory · 11:37 AM

surely that has nothing to do with the increase in dust storms off the sahara... that would be too complicated.