Resisting Climate Hysteria

[SirRumpole]

And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?

No doubt the same argument applied when candle makers were put out of business by Edison and cart makers suffered the same fate at the hands of Henry Ford.

 

[cynic]

No doubt the same argument applied when candle makers were put out of business by Edison and cart makers suffered the same fate at the hands of Henry Ford.

There is a distinct problem, with that analogy, in that it relates to evolutions in technology that provided very attractive, real (and tangible) benefits to the progression of human society.

A far more apt anology, for the Carbon Crusade, would be the Spanish inquisition.

 

[Ves]

And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?

I do feel sorry for them and I truly believe that there should be a safety net present in society for circumstances like this (there is the dole, but I don't think it's adequate - another argument for another day). In this day and age there should not be such a thing as 'economic refugees' in a wealthy country like Australia due to forced or voluntary changes in industry and commerce. However the safety net should apply to everyone equally, not just isolated cases like the timber industry.

People should not be penalised for having to reskill and adapt to changing economic and social conditions.

There's other ways of dealing with such instances (such as corporations being held more responsible and providing funding) but government support would be the most reliable for workers in displaced industries.

 

[luutzu]

There is a distinct problem, with that analogy, in that it relates to evolutions in technology that provided very attractive, real (and tangible) benefits to the progression of human society.

A far more apt anology, for the Carbon Crusade, would be the Spanish inquisition.

It is a bit of a torture to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have a lower probability of losing your home, your live's savings, your own live or those of your loved ones because those once in a decade, once in a century, once in a thousand year weather event happen quite regularly.

Bloody do-gooders man. Telling corporations and businesses to dump their waste in a responsible manner; telling us to preserve things for future generations; telling us that our current reliance on fossil fuel will either kill all of us, or it will end one day. End by just running out or end through wars.

Make one feel like re-watching Mad Max and get furious.

 

[cynic]

It is a bit of a torture to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have a lower probability of losing your home, your live's savings, your own live or those of your loved ones because those once in a decade, once in a century, once in a thousand year weather event happen quite regularly.

Bloody do-gooders man. Telling corporations and businesses to dump their waste in a responsible manner; telling us to preserve things for future generations; telling us that our current reliance on fossil fuel will either kill all of us, or it will end one day. End by just running out or end through wars.

Make one feel like re-watching Mad Max and get furious.

What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?

 

[SirRumpole]

What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?

So it regenerates as fast as it's used does it ?

 

[cynic]

So it regenerates as fast as it's used does it ?

Who said anything about regeneration? (Drop the "re").

Production of the purported "fossil" fuels, courtesy of planet Earth, is continuing whilst I type!

The question of whether or not supply exceeds the current rate of demand is one that I am unable to ascertain from the data available to me at this time.

But it is certainly a matter that warrants deeper consideration in this contentious debate for more reasons than the questions surrounding longevity of supply. It happens to pose a serious challenge to some rather dubious research findings which erroneously claimed to have proven a causative link between "fossil" fuel consumption and increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[luutzu]

What "in Earth" makes you think that "fossil" fuel will run out?

Is the Earth flat or round?

Hmm... you for real man?

 

[luutzu]

And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?

Another example, much closer to home (quite literally and dangerously so), was the introduction of local laws about canopy trees, which subsequently prevented me from being able to quickly and efficiently dispense with a dangerous tree.

I had to patiently wait months for approval from the council, whilst the tree dropped large branches from a considerable height onto my neighbour's house and yard, only to be told that approval was contingent on me planting two larger trees to take it's place.

Now that particular situation, and the associated laws, had nothing, whatsoever, to do with sustainability of timber supply!

Your responses about the ASH mill and similar scenarios, might well be sound, but, in my direct personal experience, there is no question that the intent and impact, of this environmental movement, extends a lot further than issues concerning availability of supply and any unsound practices that may have occurred prior to the tightening or introduction of regulatory practices.

Sounds like job creation to me.

Trees, and grass, are quite important to cool the house down. Also holds water and help with oxygen and other useless stuff.

Serious though, if a tree is dangerous. i.e. it's rotting or about to snap, you can have it removed after an arborist's report.

If you feel certain of its branches are hanging dangerously in the wind, you can get people to prune it. Up to 10% does not require council permission.

Could be an annual job creation opportunity

 

[cynic]

Sounds like job creation to me.

Trees, and grass, are quite important to cool the house down. Also holds water and help with oxygen and other useless stuff.

Serious though, if a tree is dangerous. i.e. it's rotting or about to snap, you can have it removed after an arborist's report.

If you feel certain of its branches are hanging dangerously in the wind, you can get people to prune it. Up to 10% does not require council permission.

Could be an annual job creation opportunity

As usual, you pretend to know things that you clearly do not.

The arborist I intially consulted was legally powerless to do squat until I obtained a permit from the local council! The arborist correctly informed me that any action taken without the requisite council permit would likely result in us both being fined.

My next door neighbour on the other side, had, just a few years earlier, been fined by that same council for cutting down a completely dead tree without first obtaining a permit!

 

[cynic]

Is the Earth flat or round?

Hmm... you for real man?

In answer to your first question, it is neither, but I wouldn't expect you to understand my reason for answering thus.

In response to your second question:
Do you understand the scientific basis for my questioning of the use of the word "fossil" in the phrase "fossil fuel"?

If you don't, then how do you expect me to treat your postings to this thread seriously?

 

[luutzu]

As usual, you pretend to know things that you clearly do not.

The arborist I intially consulted was legally powerless to do squat until I obtained a permit from the local council! The arborist correctly informed me that any action taken without the requisite council permit would likely result in us both being fined.

My next door neighbour on the other side, had, just a few years earlier, been fined by that same council for cutting down a completely dead tree without first obtaining a permit!

Dunno man, I just literally had a neighbour's tree pruned in preparation for my new castle.

Got a few quotes and they all say that if it's just a prune, there's no need for council approval. I mean, you can't lopped off the entire canopy. Keep it at 10%.

I'd rather the tree is completely removed as it's leaning toward my house but the neighbour said he tried to have them remove but council didn't approved. Pruning is legal.

Well duh man. To remove any large tree require approval. An arborist's report goes for $1000 or so - you kinda need that to prove that the tree was dead and weren't just annoying you.

 

[luutzu]

In answer to your first question, it is neither, but I wouldn't expect you to understand my reason for answering thus.

In response to your second question:
Do you understand the scientific basis for my questioning of the use of the word "fossil" in the phrase "fossil fuel"?

If you don't, then how do you expect me to treat your postings to this thread seriously?

Fossil fuel are gas, oil, coal and its derivatives. No?

Crude oil and gas came about when organic material, like dead dinosaurs, dead sea organics deposit itself at the bottom of the ocean/water, got trapped by silt and things like that over millions of years as they're being cooked by the Earth's heat and pressure etc. etc.

So yea, they're renewable. Just kinda take a few tens of million of years.

Coal... burnt forests got layered over the millennia, compressed etc. etc.

Well, that's one way to define renewable. Kinda like how our houses and roads aren't impacting the land because if we leave them long enough, they'll be overgrown and returned to the Earth again. So what impact.

 

[cynic]

Fossil fuel are gas, oil, coal and its derivatives. No?

Crude oil and gas came about when organic material, like dead dinosaurs, dead sea organics deposit itself at the bottom of the ocean/water, got trapped by silt and things like that over millions of years as they're being cooked by the Earth's heat and pressure etc. etc.

So yea, they're renewable. Just kinda take a few tens of million of years.

Coal... burnt forests got layered over the millennia, compressed etc. etc.

Well, that's one way to define renewable. Kinda like how our houses and roads aren't impacting the land because if we leave them long enough, they'll be overgrown and returned to the Earth again. So what impact.

Therein lies the problem. You're still subscribing to the view that fossil fuels were produced from decaying organic matter from prehistoric times.

Scientists have recently proven that an alternative (and previously unpopular ) theory, which had nothing whatsoever to do with decaying dinosaur carcuses, merits consideration.

Are you capable of doing your own google search to find information about the scientific discovery (my postings have been alluding to), or must I continue with the spoon feeding?

 

[luutzu]

Therein lies the problem. You're still subscribing to the view that fossil fuels were produced from decaying organic matter from prehistoric times.

Scientists have recently proven that an alternative (and previously unpopular ) theory, which had nothing whatsoever to do with decaying dinosaur carcuses, merits consideration.

Are you capable of doing your own google search to find information about the scientific discovery (my postings have been alluding to), or must I continue with the spoon feeding?

You're not talking Ethanol from corn; Methane from rubbish tips are you?

'Cause ethanol seems a bit of a waste of perfectly good food starving millions could use.

Methane from organic waste need some scrubbing and mixing with LNG and other fossil goodness.

Dunno, sounds pretty stupid when there's the Sun that rises every day. That if a day's worth of the Sun's ray could be captured, it'll supply the world's demand for an entire year.

But that's just stupid.

 

[cynic]

You're not talking Ethanol from corn; Methane from rubbish tips are you?

'Cause ethanol seems a bit of a waste of perfectly good food starving millions could use.

Methane from organic waste need some scrubbing and mixing with LNG and other fossil goodness.

Dunno, sounds pretty stupid when there's the Sun that rises every day. That if a day's worth of the Sun's ray could be captured, it'll supply the world's demand for an entire year.

But that's just stupid.

Sigh!!!

It seems we really are on different pages of different books in different libraries on totally different planets.

How about I do just a little more spoon feeding and link you to just one of the many articles discussing some of the discoveries that raise credible challenges to the "fossil fuel" theory.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html

 

[luutzu]

Sigh!!!

It seems we really are on different pages of different books in different libraries on totally different planets.

How about I do just a little more spoon feeding and link you to just one of the many articles discussing some of the discoveries that raise credible challenges to the "fossil fuel" theory.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html

Good one. ha ha

hmmm... drilled through 4 miles of hard granite to get 80 odd barrel of oil. Better buy stocks in drill bits companies then.

But sure man, drill for more oil... or... or the sun and the wind at sea level.

 

[cynic]

Good one. ha ha

hmmm... drilled through 4 miles of hard granite to get 80 odd barrel of oil. Better buy stocks in drill bits companies then.

But sure man, drill for more oil... or... or the sun and the wind at sea level.

Did you misunderstand the scientific significance of that oil discovery?

Or are you purposefully missing the point?

 

[luutzu]

Did you misunderstand the scientific significance of that oil discovery?

Or are you purposefully missing the point?

That there's oil in them rocks, if only we squeeze hard enough?

Seriously though, assuming that the Earth does produce abiotic oil on a daily basis under them granites... have you tried to drill through a travertine tile? Or play with granite? Man, if you think getting the drill bits through deep water is hard, try doing that through deep water and then miles of granite.

That and there's this Climate Change thingy where scientists, you know, the idiots that came from the same school of science and stuff, idiots we all rely on for medicine and technology... they tend to say all the fossil ought to be left in the ground, yesterday!

I'd rather put a few panels up at ground level, or roof level.

 

[cynic]

That there's oil in them rocks, if only we squeeze hard enough?

Seriously though, assuming that the Earth does produce abiotic oil on a daily basis under them granites... have you tried to drill through a travertine tile? Or play with granite? Man, if you think getting the drill bits through deep water is hard, try doing that through deep water and then miles of granite.

That and there's this Climate Change thingy where scientists, you know, the idiots that came from the same school of science and stuff, idiots we all rely on for medicine and technology... they tend to say all the fossil ought to be left in the ground, yesterday!

I'd rather put a few panels up at ground level, or roof level.

Okay! That answers my question! You are indeed, deliberately missing the point! (However, religion does tend to have the effect of rendering some people unwilling or unable, to entertain challenges presented by science.)

The point you keep overlooking is the scientific significance of the fact of any oil being discovered in that location. You have also overlooked other pertinent discoveries mentioned in the same article.

This and other discoveries were of huge scientific significance because they challenge the validity of the fossil fuel theory!

Those discoveries illustrate that the "scientists", you keep blathering on about, have gotten some very important facts totally wrong!

Any conclusions premised upon scientific fallacies (as opposed to scientific facts) will very likely prove to be seriously amiss!

The discovery of faulty assumptions, about the origins of fossil fuels, threatens at least one of the major foundations of your climate religion!!!