"geoff" wrote in message
...
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly
affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary
"The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

ISTR it was fairly comprehensively debunked

Concerted and furious attempts were made to debunk it. They were not very
sucessful. Everyone interested in this subject should read Lord Lawson's
excellent little book 'An Appeal to Reason'. This examines in minute detail
the economics of the various possible courses of action that mankind can
take regarding alleged global warming, and concludes. . . well, go on, buy
the book! It's only six quid.

Bill

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:
OK then. Let's take a look at what goes into one of these lamps, and then
you can tell us if you don't agree.

Given all of this, I cannot understand how anyone can believe that CFLs
as a
substitute for incandescents, are better in terms of energy budget and
manufacturing / shipping pollutant generation than the humble light bulbs
we
already have. It's all very well saying that all of this is offset by the
reduced energy consumption throughout it's supposedly long life, but
that's
an awfully hard one to swallow.
Thanks for an excellent posting, which I've trimmed only to save space.

Having looked down your list of polutents, there are none there that
concern me. To pick up on a few of the more commonly mentioned ones...
CO2 and global warming -- I'm not a subscriber to the current popularist
theory, so I don't feel a need to reduce my CO2 footprint at all costs
(but see below).
Mercury -- The quantities involved in CFLs for domestic use are not
significant. If you are Mr. Average, you have the same amount of
mercury in your body as there are in 1000 CFLs. The larger quantities
used in commercial fluorescent lighting are already being effectively
recovered, and have been for years.
Energy use in manufacture - that's entirely encompassed in the
manufacturing costs (which are very much less than the purchase price).
Given they are sold for a profit for £1, and heavily taxed on import
to the EU (in the misguided attempt to protect Philips), the manufacture
cost is probably of the order 20p, and the energy cost some fraction of
that.

So I have dismissed the commonly quoted reasons for both using and
avoiding CFL's, because I think they're all irrelevant, yet I am clearly
an enthusiast for them. Why?

My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out, and/or demand outstripping supply, and some is due to
a severe dereliction of duty of politicians to have anticipated
this in time to do anything sensible about it, when it's been
obvious to many of us for years. Ultimately, I suspect world
shortage of energy (or prices unaffordable to many) could well be
the trigger for the next world war, and many would argue it has
already been the cause for some current wars.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary "The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.


WEll there you are sadly wrong.

Although I agree with your original post.
Water vapour is already at saturation point. That why it keeps on raining.

Co2 is nowhere neat saturation point. It can keep rising a LOT.

We could eliminate almost all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere by simply
using other forms of power and fuel. And waiting a thousand years.

Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.

So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades. Its just adapting to the
next thousand years that will be 'interesting'

Lotst of people will die, and civilizations will fall. Nothing new there
really.


Arfa

Bill Wright wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out,

Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched. It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.

Bill


tHts ********. Whatever the true reserves are, they aren't 'unlimited'
and whatever they are, they are never 100% recoverable. If it takes more
than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil then as a fuel it is
useless. Its negative equity time. Doesn't meant it couldn't still be
used for making precious plastics though.

And the other issue is that its already far more epensive then nuclear
energy, so there is no reason to use it to make electricity apart from
political issues.

And if we use electric transport, no reason to put it in cars.

Oil won't run out: It will just price itself out of the market. It
almost has already..

On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:

Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched.

"Never"? That's a very long time, especially considering oil usage is
constantly growing. However many "low grade reserves" you have, there
is not an infinite supply of oil. It _will_ run out, if we keep using
it at this ever increasing rate. The question is merely when.

It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.

Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.

--
David Taylor

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.
There's enough coal under Yorkshire to last the whole UK 300 years.


So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades.
No we really won't. We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had
before.

Its just adapting to the next thousand years that will be 'interesting'
We should spend our wealth on adaptation, not on trying to do the
impossible -- reducing CO2 to what it was before the western industrial
revolution, whilst the eastern industrial revolution carries on merrily.
Basically that's like the west burning £20 notes to reduce inflation whilst
the east prints more of them.

Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have stopped
rising. Goodness knows what all those who have made such a good thing for
themselves out of the current obsession will do for a living. Probably
they'll go back to more overt ultra-left politics.

Incidentally, did anyone outside our TV region see those subversives who sat
on top of a coal train near Drax and commenced the very hard labour of
shovelling all the coal onto the track? A bit of technical knowledge would
have helped them immensely. It isn't so difficult to open the hoppers and
let the coal pour out of the bottom of the wagon.

Bill

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
My number one reason is energy usage, not for anything to do with
carbon emissions, but because viable energy is in increasingly
short supply in the world. Some of this is due to finite resources
running out,

Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than
they have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to
illustrate this. And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly
last week who said that the oil would never run out because of all the
low grade reserves as yet untouched. It will get very expensive, yes, but
ultimately replacements will come in a various price points. This leads
me to this morning's item in the Times (page 56 I think) which describes
two apparently very promising means of producing crude via genetic
engineering.

Bill
tHts ********.
Ohh, you little tinker! You were so keen to jump in there your fingers got
in a twist!

Whatever the true reserves are, they aren't 'unlimited'
No-one said they were. Although it could be the case that we could carry on
finding new reserves faster than we use up the old ones for quite a while.
Meanwhile, new energy sources will be found.

and whatever they are, they are never 100% recoverable. If it takes more
than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil then as a fuel it is
useless.
That simply wouldn't be viable, so I doubt if the oil men would even think
of attempting to recover it, or the accountants would even think of counting
it in the first place.

Oil won't run out: It will just price itself out of the market. It almost
has already..
No, we're nowhere near that point. If we were you'd see a proliferation of
steam cars and God knows what else on the sreets.

Bill

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:

Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than
they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate
this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who
said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched.

"Never"? That's a very long time, especially considering oil usage is
constantly growing. However many "low grade reserves" you have, there
is not an infinite supply of oil. It _will_ run out, if we keep using
it at this ever increasing rate. The question is merely when.
I should think he meant that the oil will last for the forseeable future.
Perhaps 100 years. It would be quite absurd for us to trouble ourselves
about what will happen after that.


It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item
in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.

Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.

The laws of supply and demand will solve everything.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
Arfa Daily wrote:
Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.
There's enough coal under Yorkshire to last the whole UK 300 years.


So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades.
No we really won't. We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had
before.

Its just adapting to the next thousand years that will be 'interesting'
We should spend our wealth on adaptation, not on trying to do the
impossible -- reducing CO2 to what it was before the western industrial
revolution, whilst the eastern industrial revolution carries on merrily.
Basically that's like the west burning £20 notes to reduce inflation whilst
the east prints more of them.

Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have stopped
rising.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...e/myths/2.html

--
geoff

In message , Bill Wright
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly
affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary
"The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

ISTR it was fairly comprehensively debunked

Concerted and furious attempts were made to debunk it. They were not very
sucessful.

ISTR it was well and truly shot down



--
geoff

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:37:04 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

If it takes more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil then
as a fuel it is useless.

That simply wouldn't be viable, so I doubt if the oil men would even
think of attempting to recover it,

That I cane believe if they ain't going to make any money they won't do
it.

or the accountants would even think of counting it in the first place.

That I'm not so sure about. It depends what the accountant is out to
prove.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have
stopped
rising.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...e/myths/2.html

Yes, proves it doesn't it? Look at the tiny bit of the graph on the right.
and compare it with the bits for approx 1880 and 1940. It looks like we're
at the start of a downward trend. Incidentally, look also at the downward
slope from 1940 t0 1960, when mankind was ramping up industrial production.

Bill

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and
considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my
previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly
affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary
"The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If
you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

ISTR it was fairly comprehensively debunked

Concerted and furious attempts were made to debunk it. They were not very
sucessful.

ISTR it was well and truly shot down

Point by point, no it wasn't. There was a lot of shouting and hyserics from
the crypto left green axegrinders, but they couldn't really debunk it.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip
tHts ********.

Ohh, you little tinker! You were so keen to jump in there your
fingers got in a twist!

snip
No, we're nowhere near that point. If we were you'd see a
proliferation of steam cars and God knows what else on the sreets.


First rule of Usenet, if one is pointing out a typo one is sure to
make a tpyo ones self! :~)

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

snip
Perhaps 100 years. It would be quite absurd for us to trouble
ourselves about what will happen after that.

Why ever not, for many of the younger generation that will be within
the life time of their own grand children, if not their own children
life time - know if you mean 1000 years...

But I do, to pick up on a comment made elsewhere, think that this
eco-concern has become the new socialism, a way to bash the
capitalists whilst pushing eco-left policies that have f*ck all impact
of CC/GW (and in some cases actually cause more problems, such as
recycling) but act as a form of stealth taxation.

David Taylor wrote:
On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:
Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched.

"Never"? That's a very long time, especially considering oil usage is
constantly growing. However many "low grade reserves" you have, there
is not an infinite supply of oil. It _will_ run out, if we keep using
it at this ever increasing rate. The question is merely when.

It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.

Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.

Nuclear is already cheaper than oil.
So is hydro.

In places where it works so is geothermal and the odd tidal.

Windmills aren't when the total costs are taken into account.

Solar can be in certain locations but Britain ain't one of them.

Bill Wright wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:
Surprisingly, an item in yesterday's Times (could have been Thursday's)
showed (if taken as the truth) that oil reserves are greater now than
they
have ever been. An impressive graphic had been produced to illustrate
this.
And there was the oil 'expert' from the US on the telly last week who
said
that the oil would never run out because of all the low grade reserves as
yet untouched.
"Never"? That's a very long time, especially considering oil usage is
constantly growing. However many "low grade reserves" you have, there
is not an infinite supply of oil. It _will_ run out, if we keep using
it at this ever increasing rate. The question is merely when.
I should think he meant that the oil will last for the forseeable future.
Perhaps 100 years. It would be quite absurd for us to trouble ourselves
about what will happen after that.


It will last longer han that, because at 250 dollars a barrel+ no one
will want to use it.


It will get very expensive, yes, but ultimately replacements
will come in a various price points. This leads me to this morning's item
in
the Times (page 56 I think) which describes two apparently very promising
means of producing crude via genetic engineering.
Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.

The laws of supply and demand will solve everything.

Eventually, but it will take a decade or two.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.
There's enough coal under Yorkshire to last the whole UK 300 years.

So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades.
No we really won't. We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had
before.


So where did it all magically appear from?


Its just adapting to the next thousand years that will be 'interesting'
We should spend our wealth on adaptation, not on trying to do the
impossible -- reducing CO2 to what it was before the western industrial
revolution, whilst the eastern industrial revolution carries on merrily.
Basically that's like the west burning £20 notes to reduce inflation whilst
the east prints more of them.

Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have stopped
rising.

Tell that to the penguins

Goodness knows what all those who have made such a good thing for
themselves out of the current obsession will do for a living. Probably
they'll go back to more overt ultra-left politics.

Incidentally, did anyone outside our TV region see those subversives who sat
on top of a coal train near Drax and commenced the very hard labour of
shovelling all the coal onto the track? A bit of technical knowledge would
have helped them immensely. It isn't so difficult to open the hoppers and
let the coal pour out of the bottom of the wagon.

No comment.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post an informed and
considered
reply. I can take on board most of what you say. As I said in my
previous
post, I too am unconvinced about the ability of man to significantly
affect
the levels of CO2 prevalent in the atmosphere. I read somewhere a while
back, that in fact water vapour in the atmosphere has a much greater
greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you catch the excellent CH4 documentary
"The
Great Global Warming Swindle" a while back? Very thought provoking. If
you
didn't, I believe it is available to view on YouTube.

ISTR it was fairly comprehensively debunked
Concerted and furious attempts were made to debunk it. They were not very
sucessful.
ISTR it was well and truly shot down

Point by point, no it wasn't. There was a lot of shouting and hyserics from
the crypto left green axegrinders, but they couldn't really debunk it.


Didn't need to since it didn't stand up on its own two feet in the first
place.


Bill

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had before.


So where did it all magically appear from?

New discoveries, no one truly knows how much oil is under the two ice
caps for example whilst new discoveries are being made under the
Southdown's for example.


Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have
stopped rising.

Tell that to the penguins

Like our ancestors should have done, no doubt, at the end of the last
ice-age when the penguins (or their ancestors) had to either move
further north or adapt...

:Jerry: wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had before.

So where did it all magically appear from?

New discoveries, no one truly knows how much oil is under the two ice
caps for example whilst new discoveries are being made under the
Southdown's for example.

so basically a 'reserve' is a number on a piece of paper that may or may
not be related to actual extractable oil in the ground in a place where
it can be extracted?

Oil companies share prices are directly related to their reserves:
Their directors remuneration is directly related to the share price.

Cui Bono?

Purrlease.

Just because green u washed are talking up their case doesn't mean the
oil companies aren't.



Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures have
stopped rising.
Tell that to the penguins

Like our ancestors should have done, no doubt, at the end of the last
ice-age when the penguins (or their ancestors) had to either move
further north or adapt...


So you admit that we are still in a cycle of highly rapid global
warming, then?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
:Jerry: wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had before.

So where did it all magically appear from?

New discoveries, no one truly knows how much oil is under the two
ice caps for example whilst new discoveries are being made under
the Southdown's for example.

so basically a 'reserve' is a number on a piece of paper that may or
may not be related to actual extractable oil in the ground in a
place where it can be extracted?

Normally it's *extractable oil*, although it might (at a given point
in time) be uneconomic to extract, but (at another point in time, yet
unknown) might become economic to extract. OTOH it is known that there
is oil that is *un-extractable* (such as under the poles) which AIUI
is not counted, but should technology change and the oil becomes
extractable...


Oil companies share prices are directly related to their reserves:
Their directors remuneration is directly related to the share price.

Cui Bono?

Purrlease.

Just because green u washed are talking up their case doesn't mean
the oil companies aren't.


Well that might be so, but just as the oil companies can talk up their
position so can everyone else, for example those scientist who get
their funding (and thus income) from researching 'climate change, IOW
be careful when using that sort of argument as it can bite back!



Anyway, the 'problem' seems to be solving itself. Temperatures
have stopped rising.
Tell that to the penguins

Like our ancestors should have done, no doubt, at the end of the
last ice-age when the penguins (or their ancestors) had to either
move further north or adapt...
So you admit that we are still in a cycle of highly rapid global
warming, then?


Err, what I was saying is that glib, emotive, comments like "Tell that
to the penguins" doesn't serve any worth in the debate due to the fact
that the climate has been changing since the beginning of the world,
if it hadn't were would probably not be around and the Dinosaurs would
still be walking the earth. As for climate cycling, that is the great
unexplained, for instance we were told in 2001 that the flood (at that
time in York) were the worse for 400 years and thus proved CC/GW, but
no one ever explained what caused the even worse floods of 400 plus
years ago - IOW is current thing that most man calls "Climate Change"
a result of 'pollution' or is it simply the result of a natural cycle?

On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...

Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.

The laws of supply and demand will solve everything.

IIRC, Supply and Demand applies to things with elastic demand.

Energy usage has some elastic components, but a lot is required to
keep the world going. Food is certainly a necessity, and if the cost of
food starts to rise, demand will not drop. If sufficient alternate
energy generation can't be brought online quickly enough, the cost of
energy and food will rise to a point where people can't afford to eat.

There is of course some indication that this is already beginning to
happen, although that appears to be related to the availability of land
to grow food on...

--
David Taylor

David Taylor wrote:
On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.
The laws of supply and demand will solve everything.

IIRC, Supply and Demand applies to things with elastic demand.

Energy usage has some elastic components, but a lot is required to
keep the world going. Food is certainly a necessity, and if the cost of
food starts to rise, demand will not drop. If sufficient alternate
energy generation can't be brought online quickly enough, the cost of
energy and food will rise to a point where people can't afford to eat.

There is of course some indication that this is already beginning to
happen, although that appears to be related to the availability of land
to grow food on...

We're into territory where the primitive 'rules' of the market no longer
apply. The point about elasticity is well made. Without massive
production of nitrogen fertiliser we would not be feeding the world now.
The sorts of decisions that need to be made must be made outside the
crude profit model.

For example massive investment is needed in public transport, water
purification and reuse, energy production particularly small-scale
solar-based energy production and so on. Most of this is now in private
hands in the UK. I'm not making a political point, just practical.
Companies cannot be forced, only bribed. The German government has made
a lot of money available to make solar generation more economic, hence
it has a very high uptake of photo-voltaics. However I for one don't
want to hand out my taxes to shareholders of private companies, so impasse.

Peter Scott

In article , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Didn't need to since it didn't stand up on its own two feet in the
first place.

Spotted the sophisticated and substantiated argument there. Thanks for
that - great contribution to the debate.

Oh, I forgot, there isn't one any more. Global warming caused primarily
by human activity is a fact. Sorry: my mistake.


If you listen quietly at the right time of day you'll hear clocks
striking thirteen.
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:13:10 +0100 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Concerted and furious attempts were made to debunk it. They were not very
sucessful.

Although the "documentary" didn't stand up to the slightest
examination, some people were taken in by it. Some people appear to
want to believe it is true, others have an open mind but were taken
in by the programme.

Those with an open mind on the documentary should study the links at
http://coinet.org.uk/discussion/swindleresponse and decide for
themselves.

Everyone interested in this subject should read Lord Lawson's
excellent little book 'An Appeal to Reason'.

Mr Lawson is not a climate change scientist. His views on the
subject have to be considered in this light.

If one is talking about economics then one needs to compare Mr
Lawson's views with those of Nicholas Stern.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snip
snip

Mr Lawson is not a climate change scientist.

Nor are you Mr Hansen.....

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip
tHts ********.

Ohh, you little tinker! You were so keen to jump in there your fingers
got in a twist!

snip
No, we're nowhere near that point. If we were you'd see a proliferation
of steam cars and God knows what else on the sreets.


First rule of Usenet, if one is pointing out a typo one is sure to make a
tpyo ones self! :~)

I only do it to brighten up everyone's day!

Bilk

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Since we are lazy irresponsible beings, this will happen when the fossil
fuel runs out, which it seems to be doing.
There's enough coal under Yorkshire to last the whole UK 300 years.

So, no need to worry about global warming: we did it, we can't undo it,
and we will be fossil free in a few decades.
No we really won't. We have more oil reserves now than we've ever had
before.


So where did it all magically appear from?

It's because the price is going up, so they're prospecting more widely.

Bill

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:00:40 +0100 someone who may be "Bill Wright"
wrote this:-

So where did it all magically appear from?

It's because the price is going up, so they're prospecting more widely.

Peak Oil is a much misunderstood fact. There is a good introduction
at http://www.depletion-scotland.org.uk.

One of the links from there is to
http://philhart.com/peak_oil/introduction where I particularly
liked the following:

"Listening to the 'market experts' on your evening news, you could
be forgiven for thinking that oil production is governed purely by
economic theories. It is going to be a painful lesson, but even the
economists will soon learn that the production of oil is in fact
governed by very sound geological principles and the laws of
physics.

"The oil we have built our societies on was actually created one
hundred million years ago. More of it is not now going to suddenly
appear 10,000 feet underground just because economists say the price
is too high. [snip]"

"Some Frequently Asked Questions about 'Peak Oil'

"Our 'market experts' routinely peddle a few simple myths to deny
the imminent reality of peak oil. Technology and 'unconventional
oil' are a reality in the industry today and will become more
important. But they will not be able to make-up for the decline in
production of the 'easy oil' which we have squandered.

""The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage
with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground." [Kenneth S.
Deffeyes, Princeton University Geologist]

"Technology

""Most of the world's oil was found long ago with technology no more
advanced than the hammer and hand lens. Some 60% lies in about 300
easily found giant fields. But over the last 20 years, we have seen
amazing technological advances in the exploration arena." [Jack
Zagar]

"Geochemistry to identify the oil potential around the world.
Seismic technology to define the size and shape of reservoirs.
Drilling technology for longer, deeper, more accurate and
multi-lateral wells. The industry has and continues to use advanced
technology, but the trend is inescapable. We can only find smaller
fields that are more difficult to produce. New technology often
helps to increase production rates and drain oil fields faster, but
rarely does it significantly increase the ultimate amount of oil
that can be recovered.

"Crying Wolf

"The final argument from the optimists is that people have always
been predicting the end of oil and they have always been wrong.

"In the 1980's, resource companies often only had stated reserves
equivalent to ten years or so of production. Ignoring new
discoveries, which at that time still matched production, some
people reached the simple but incorrect conclusion that oil would
run out in that time frame. Now, though, we are discovering a lot
less than we use each and every year. Technically competent analysis
does not describe oil 'running out', but shows that production must
soon peak and begin an inevitable decline.

"In 1956, geophysicist M. King Hubbert working for Shell predicted
oil production in the continental United States would peak in the
early 1970s. He was proven right, but even in 1970 the industry
scorned his prediction. They gloated that production levels
continued to set records, only to see the predicted decline commence
in the following years.

"Following the same methodology, Hubbert predicted a world 'peak' in
oil production for around the year 2000. This will be only a few
years early, not because we have discovered more oil than he
predicted, but through the oil shocks of the 1980's we used a little
less in the meantime, slightly delaying the peak. Made half a
century ago, Hubbert's prediction is still sound because he
understood the principles of geology which underly discovery and
production of oil.

"In "The End of Cheap Oil" [Scientific American, March 1998], with
more than 40 years of oil industry experience, Colin J Campbell and
Jean H Laherre predicted that world oil production would peak in
this first decade of the 21st century. As in the United States in
1970, the economists scorn these predictions, but science is not on
their side."



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

snip most of the 'agenda driven' URLs/citations

"Listening to the 'market experts' on your evening news, you could
be forgiven for thinking that oil production is governed purely by
economic theories. It is going to be a painful lesson, but even the
economists will soon learn that the production of oil is in fact
governed by very sound geological principles and the laws of
physics.

No one other than with a anti oil agenda, such as those you cite have
said anything diferant, FFS the oil companies have been saying that
since they first drilled in the North Sea!


"The oil we have built our societies on was actually created one
hundred million years ago. More of it is not now going to suddenly
appear 10,000 feet underground just because economists say the price
is too high. [snip]"

No, but new fields do get discovered, then with the price of crude oil
increasing, there are the previously un-economic fields/sources that
become economic - a prime example is oil retrieved from oil shale,
high cost of retrieval for relatively low production returns, but if
the barrel price is high enough...

Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said
that the incandescent was too blue, and lamplight was better... And no,
I wouldn't want to mix paint under a CFL. Nor choose it.

On costing - IMHO the only energy that isn't fully costed is fossil.
The cost of dealing with all that waste CO2 just isn't being taken into
account. Oil taxes should be way higher - and then we could get rid of
all those stupid thing like "road fund licence" too.

Andy

On 2008-06-15 14:05:46 +0100, Peter Scott said:

David Taylor wrote:
On 2008-06-14, Bill Wright wrote:
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
Yes, eventually replacements (wind/tidal/solar/nuclear/geothermal) will
become cheaper than oil. The question is how fast they will be able to
be introduced, and how fast the price of oil will rise.
The laws of supply and demand will solve everything.

IIRC, Supply and Demand applies to things with elastic demand.

Energy usage has some elastic components, but a lot is required to
keep the world going. Food is certainly a necessity, and if the cost of
food starts to rise, demand will not drop. If sufficient alternate
energy generation can't be brought online quickly enough, the cost of
energy and food will rise to a point where people can't afford to eat.

There is of course some indication that this is already beginning to
happen, although that appears to be related to the availability of land
to grow food on...

We're into territory where the primitive 'rules' of the market no
longer apply. The point about elasticity is well made. Without massive
production of nitrogen fertiliser we would not be feeding the world
now. The sorts of decisions that need to be made must be made outside
the crude profit model.

For example massive investment is needed in public transport

Why? It is way too inflexible

, water purification and reuse, energy production particularly
small-scale solar-based energy production

Why? Large scale nuclear production is a far more practicable solution


and so on. Most of this is now in private hands in the UK. I'm not
making a political point, just practical. Companies cannot be forced,
only bribed.

That's how the free market essentially works when looking at it in one
way - i.e. that there needs to government intervention.

The German government has made a lot of money available to make solar
generation more economic, hence it has a very high uptake of
photo-voltaics. However I for one don't want to hand out my taxes to
shareholders of private companies, so impasse.


Not really. Reduce the taxes so that individuals can make their own
investment decisions. Cut out the (incompetent government) middle man.

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said
that the incandescent was too blue, and lamplight was better... And no, I
wouldn't want to mix paint under a CFL. Nor choose it.

On costing - IMHO the only energy that isn't fully costed is fossil. The
cost of dealing with all that waste CO2 just isn't being taken into
account. Oil taxes should be way higher - and then we could get rid of
all those stupid thing like "road fund licence" too.

Andy

But don't confuse colour tempereature with colour rendition index. As I
understand it, the CFLs tend to have a tricolour phosphor for producing
their light, and by varying the mix of the three colours, you can alter the
colour temperature. However, the three phosphors have deep wavelength 'dips'
where they overlap, and this is what affects the CRI and gives the light
that sort of 'sick' quality to our eyes, no matter what the actual colour
temperature. The daylight that reaches us from the sun has a much 'flatter'
spectrum and, whilst the light from an incandescent lacks significantly at
the blue end compared to daylight, it does have a 'smooth' spectrum with
comparable levels at the longer wavelength end, which gives the light a
'quality' which our eyes and brains are much happier with.

Arfa

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snip
snip

Mr Lawson is not a climate change scientist.

Nor are you Mr Hansen.....

Nor is Al Gore ...

Arfa

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
Lumme that stirred it up - and it was only the RF pollution I mentioned!

A couple of points guys on that long discussion:

Colour Temperature - the CFL is a lot closer to daylight for our
3-colour-sensor eyes than the old incandescent. I daresay people said

Daylight covers a wide range, from dawn (2100K), through to midday
(5600K), through to just before twilight (2100K). Incandescent (2700K)
is a damn good match for daylight at the time we need to start enhancing
light levels for our own comfort at home. What we in effect do in our homes
is stretch out the early evening period before twilight for which daylight
is 2700K way into the evening/night, both at the colour temperature and
comenserate lumen level (illumination level).

Office and other workplaces generally have more demanding lighting
requirements to keep us working more optimally rather than dozing off.
Hence office lighting tends to operate at 3500K and higher lumen
levels, mimiking a natural daytime period even further from night time
than we chose to do at home.

For a natural feel, it is reasonably important that the colour
temperature and lumen level are reasonably well synchronised. If you
turn on a 5600K fluorescent in the evening, it will look horribly blue,
but this is because the lumen level is completely wrong. Unfortunately,
to get the lumen level up to midday levels, you are going to have to
completely cover your ceiling with fluorescent fittings. If you do
this, that colour temperature will then appear natural at that lumen
level. (This effect is named after someone, but I've forgotten the name,
and a google search was no help.)

that the incandescent was too blue, and lamplight was better... And no, I
wouldn't want to mix paint under a CFL. Nor choose it.

You probably want to do that under the conditions you are most often
going to view it. In a bedroom for example, in most cases, that's not
going to be with daylight streaming in the windows.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

:Jerry: wrote:
[snip]

simply
because to do so would be signing the death-nail for the industry...


How do you sign a nail, "death" or otherwise?

Or did you mean "sounding the death knell" rather than "signing the
death-nail"? Could it be you don't know what you are talking about?

"funkmish" wrote in message
...
snip
Could it be you don't know what you are talking about?

Could it just be that you are a worthless troll, who can only pick up
on typos etc. rather than debate the issues?

:Jerry: wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

snip most of the 'agenda driven' URLs/citations
"Listening to the 'market experts' on your evening news, you could
be forgiven for thinking that oil production is governed purely by
economic theories. It is going to be a painful lesson, but even the
economists will soon learn that the production of oil is in fact
governed by very sound geological principles and the laws of
physics.

No one other than with a anti oil agenda, such as those you cite have
said anything diferant, FFS the oil companies have been saying that
since they first drilled in the North Sea!

"The oil we have built our societies on was actually created one
hundred million years ago. More of it is not now going to suddenly
appear 10,000 feet underground just because economists say the price
is too high. [snip]"

No, but new fields do get discovered, then with the price of crude oil
increasing, there are the previously un-economic fields/sources that
become economic - a prime example is oil retrieved from oil shale,
high cost of retrieval for relatively low production returns, but if
the barrel price is high enough...


The Athabasca tar sands were known in the 60's because I remember them
from my 'O' levels..


They are not new reserves, merely ones that have almost become economic.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:45:57 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The Athabasca tar sands were known in the 60's because I remember them
from my 'O' levels..

As it says at http://philhart.com/peak_oil/introduction

"The simplest observation to begin with is that you must discover
oil before you can produce it. Figure 1 shows the worldwide trend of
oil discovery and production. This chart reveals several important
facts:

"* There were enormous early discoveries (in the Middle East) in the
late 1930's and late 1940's

"* Worldwide oil discovery peaked in 1964 and has been falling ever
since

"* Every year since 1984, we have been discovered less oil than we
have produced

"* We currently find one barrel of oil for every four that we use"





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
snipped

How about citing some facts Mr Hansen rather than some anti oil, anti
capitalist, anti motor vehicle, **opinions**.