[GoghGoner]

I have used The Oil Drum exclusively for my energy news but cannot read their oil company propaganda any longer. I don't mind reading anti-science and anti-environmental rhetoric in comments or forums, however, I draw the line at the posting of articles. PO dot com does not publish their own stuff so there should be no reason for me to feel upset...

Here is a snipped quote from one the latest articles titled "Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick" published by the TOD staff:

"I attended a talk on Global Warming this past week, by Richard Stegemeier a member of the National Academy of Engineering, who began by drawing a distinction between engineers and scientists, and noting that it is largely climate scientists that have been involved in the publications of the IPCC. He was somewhat cynical about the cherry-picking of data that those scientists had used to try and buttress their arguments (citing for example the major retreat of the Glacier at Glacier Bay National Park, which had its most significant fraction before the GHG concentrations began to increase, and in some parts is now advancing )."

What is this typical denialist argument doing in an article about oil shale? My high school English composition teacher would have rapped my knuckles for being so far off topic. BTW, Stegemeier is Chairman Emeritus of Unocal.

In another article this past week, it was advocated to drill in the ANWR because it would not contribute significantly to GHG levels in the atmosphere.

This is the same argument most people use when they buy V12 trucks to commute to and from their office jobs. We all contribute to the whole!

[Cashmere]

return.

[cipi604]

Buddy, I'm a 'denialist' too, and a peak oil believer , and a doomer .... one very convinced that this is it. But what this has to do with information, numbers, logic and everything you read from us. What you may think is the truth... it could be a lie. For the moment is pretty cold down here on earth.

For your information, I don't drive a car, I use public transport ... like a pure denialist!

[GoghGoner]

What you may think is the truth... it could be a lie. For the moment is pretty cold down here on earth.

For your information, I don't drive a car, I use public transport ... like a pure denialist!

I think this is just plain kooky. There has definitely been a warming trend and this winter will not overtly affect that line. From what I understand the IPCC report is fairly conservative and does not overstate the research that has been done. I am not a climate scientist but it seems like the greenhouse effect is the best explanation at this time to explain the climate changes.

I am also in the camp that energy shortage will do more damage in the short-term than climate change so this isn't a big issue for me. But I work in research and to have science research called a hoax is very insulting to me.

[cipi604]

Science it is, depends on what side of the fence you are. I'm an environmentalist ... but when you come down to GW, ok everybody knows tha CO2 is contributing to this, I don't agree by how much.
If you consider that I pollute less than Al Gore, he's the 'denialist'.

Take a look here on this numbers, it will help you understand.
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

[Twilight]

PO dot com does not publish their own stuff so there should be no reason for me to feel upset...

Welcome. I have gathered that there is no statement of mission or principles here to adhere to. People aggregate the news they like and comment as they see fit. However, while the site may not have an agenda, individuals do. So long as you are prepared to see a very wide range of opinion, much of it not matching your own, you will probably be OK.

[GoghGoner]

Welcome. I have gathered that there is no statement of mission or principles here to adhere to. People aggregate the news they like and comment as they see fit. However, while the site may not have an agenda, individuals do. So long as you are prepared to see a very wide range of opinion, much of it not matching your own, you will probably be OK.

Thanks.

I have read through a couple of threads on airline issues and have found a couple of informed opinions which is all I ask for.

[Iaato]

What the is this typical denialist argument doing in an article about oil shale? My high school English composition teacher would have rapped my knuckles for being so far off topic. BTW, Stegemeier is Chairman Emeritus of Unocal.

Welcome, GoghGoner. If you're looking for a group that stays on topic, we are not them! That said, there's a really diverse group here from many different disciplines in a free-ranging discussion, which limits the amount of group think. We need outside the box thinking; we can't use the thinking that got us into it to get us out. And the majority of our thinking needs to focus on demand issues rather than supply issues. I think we've established that we need to get off the fossil fuel teat. So why TOD insists on focusing predominantly on supply issues is interesting, and rather curious. I have some theories about that. It would be interesting to do a content analysis of the posted threads over there, to look at the percentage of supply vs. demand articles, and to look at whether the general perspectives presented are focused on specific resources or a certain technological approach. And how many are technologically oriented as opposed to using other ways of coping with problems of descent. There are many threads here about whether technology is a useful tool for the PO battle or not; you might want to check those out.

I agree that the energy issue is a much bigger, more imminent problem than GW. And the trends for GW may change radically depending on how we respond to PO. And shale oil was discredited in the 1970s; what on earth are we doing still flogging that dead horse?

Always glad to have more brains to apply to the issues at hand, welcome.

[Cashmere]

Like I said, not too late to go back.

In your words, I am a "denialist".

In my words, go f--k yourself.

Man caused GW is far from proven, whether or not it is the best current theory, and calling people "deniers" is unintelligent and juvenile.

[Ferretlover]

Welcome.
And, (quickly) learn to keep on your toes. There are a great many perspectives presented here.

[Pops]

In my words, go f--k yourself.

As you can see goner, there are many ineloquent and obviously juvenile posters here tapping out their frustrations at their Moms' rules about cursing.

But take heart, there are folks here who have posted for more than 3-weeks with some great insight who try to keep their posts in the appropriate forum..

Welcome.

[GoghGoner]

And the majority of our thinking needs to focus on demand issues rather than supply issues. I think we've established that we need to get off the fossil fuel teat. So why TOD insists on focusing predominantly on supply issues is interesting, and rather curious. I have some theories about that.

Thanks. I had never thought of it that way but I guess you are right. The ff supply will invariably decline so it's pointless to beat a dead horse. Perhaps some of the TOD staff have an oil extraction background so only see the supply side.

[GoghGoner]

In my words, go f--k yourself.

As you can see goner, there are many ineloquent and obviously juvenile posters here tapping out their frustrations at their Moms' rules about cursing.

But take heart, there are folks here who have posted for more than 3-weeks with some great insight who try to keep their posts in the appropriate forum..

Welcome.

Thanks, Pops. I was looking into food storage awhile ago and remember reading some of your posts in that thread. They were quite helpful.

[Cashmere]

As you can see goner, there are many ineloquent and obviously juvenile posters here tapping out their frustrations at their Moms' rules about cursing.

What?

My mom's rule was simple - you can only use 1/2 the letters in any profanity.

No frustration here.

[Pops]

You are welcome goner, look around, there is lots of experience here.

My mom's rule was simple - you can only use 1/2 the letters in any profanity.

See, it's better to be creative than pedestrian and much more entertaining.

[SILENTTODD]

I view all 3 of the main blogs on this subject at least every other day. Like everything else, I weigh what I read. I look for something to be optimistic about, but I reject fantasy

[Cashmere]

Pops, I do love you. Not in the man-love way, in the really-appreciate-the-information way. I've been here a long time. I got kicked with the password thing a bit back because I couldn't remember my email log in.

Either you or seahorse, several months back, advised stocking food. Great advice. Taken.

Now you see food riots breaking out in the "3rd world". It's just a matter of time.

I don't happen to cotton the newb, who has already labeled a colleague a "denialist". Bad form, IMO. I'll leave it at that.

[pedalling_faster]

Man caused GW is far from proven.

true. you would almost need 2 earths to prove it.

fossil fuel combustion (water & carbon dioxide, though people mostly talk about the latter) - what effect do you think it's having on the climate ? if you've read a bunch then i was just curious.

by the time it's proven, we'll be, well, older, maybe a lot older.

[Cashmere]

PF - what can I say?

I think man contributes to GW. I'm not sure how much.

It may be one of those things where any cure we attempt to apply is worse than the cure.

It's entirely possible, and not unreasonable, that some or much of observable climate change would have happened whether we were here or not.