What's new
By:

Alarmists Take it in the Seat

Can someone explain the difference between an alarmist and an apologist? Are they synonyms or antonyms?
 
Hansen made accurate predicitons on warming in 1988, but in 2011 Spencer (a known climate science denialist) finds evidence hansen's model was wrong (even though it accurately predicted warming for the 12 years after 1988).

Gosh, what to believe?
 
Regardless of what claims prove true on global warming, I'm dying to hear a rational argument that we should continue policies which advocate stay the course consumption of fossil fuels. It's a finite fuel source. It absolutely has a negative impact on the environment. Alarmists might be wrong that we're headed toward another ice age, but they're not wrong on the general principle of foolishly trying to extract every last ounce of oil utility before we have to move on to its inevitable replacement.

So who cares if global warming is real? Anyone with an internet connection can make an unassailable case that oil served us well, is extremely destructive in its use (like coal), and is already on borrowed time. Shouldn't we be embracing a new energy future now rather than waiting for it to be foisted upon us in crisis?
 
The interesting thing will be to see what we use to replace petroleum in the following products:

Solvents

Diesel fuel

Motor Oil

Bearing Grease

Ink

Floor Wax

Ballpoint Pens

Football Cleats

Upholstery

Sweaters

Boats

Insecticides

Bicycle Tires

Sports Car Bodies

Nail Polish

Fishing lures

Dresses

Tires

Golf Bags

Perfumes

Cassettes

Dishwasher parts

Tool Boxes

Shoe Polish

Motorcycle Helmet

Caulking

Petroleum Jelly

Transparent Tape

CD Player

Faucet Washers

Antiseptics

Clothesline

Curtains

Food Preservatives

Basketballs

Soap

Vitamin Capsules

Antihistamines

Purses

Shoes

Dashboards

Cortisone

Deodorant

Footballs

Putty

Dyes

Panty Hose

Refrigerant

Percolators

Life Jackets

Rubbing Alcohol

Linings

Skis

TV Cabinets

Shag Rugs

Electrician's Tape

Tool Racks

Car Battery Cases

Epoxy

Paint

Mops

Slacks

Insect Repellent

Oil Filters

Umbrellas

Yarn

Fertilizers

Hair Coloring

Roofing

Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods

Lipstick

Denture Adhesive

Linoleum

Ice Cube Trays

Synthetic Rubber

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline
 
billyshelby said:
Regardless of what claims prove true on global warming, I'm dying to hear a rational argument that we should continue policies which advocate stay the course consumption of fossil fuels. It's a finite fuel source. It absolutely has a negative impact on the environment. Alarmists might be wrong that we're headed toward another ice age, but they're not wrong on the general principle of foolishly trying to extract every last ounce of oil utility before we have to move on to its inevitable replacement.

So who cares if global warming is real? Anyone with an internet connection can make an unassailable case that oil served us well, is extremely destructive in its use (like coal), and is already on borrowed time. Shouldn't we be embracing a new energy future now rather than waiting for it to be foisted upon us in crisis?
Click to expand...

Why we aren't focused on other sources?

Here's why:

https://www.boston.com/business/art...trong_at_exxon_mobil_shell_amid_new_projects/

Exxon Mobil’s earnings were a bit lower than analysts had expected, despite strong revenue growth, reflecting a record $10.3 billion in capital and exploration expenditures in new oil and gas projects, up 58 percent from the second quarter of 2010.

It was the strongest quarter for Exxon Mobil since it set a corporate quarterly earnings record of $14.8 billion in 2008, when crude oil prices approached $150 a barrel before collapsing as the world economy slowed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There are billions telling scientists, inventors, politicians, and media members that oil is good.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The interesting thing will be to see what we use to replace petroleum in the following products:
Click to expand...

I have no doubt we will be able to synthesize all the pertoleum we need that is irreplacable. The molecules are not that complex. It will just be more expensive than drilling/refining. Using more now means making things more costly in a couple of hundred years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top