Interesting thread.


Because of my job I get to hear, first hand, from the scientists who advise
Governments. One piece of information being placed before politicians is
that global oil production will peak by 2020.

There is a huge energy crisis looming. Its effects are already beginning to
be felt.


No Cheers,

keith





---
Iraq: 6 thousand million pounds, 70 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

However, there are others who, and they're not all totally nuts, think there
is plenty left.There is certainly lots of tar sand.

I suspect, (well, it's clear isn't it?) humanity will do pretty much
anything to get oil.

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...

Interesting thread.


Because of my job I get to hear, first hand, from the scientists who
advise
Governments. One piece of information being placed before politicians is
that global oil production will peak by 2020.

There is a huge energy crisis looming. Its effects are already beginning
to
be felt.


No Cheers,

keith





---
Iraq: 6 thousand million pounds, 70 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

In article , "Lawrence" writes:


Sir David King is a ideologically led fool.


In your opinion.


His background is sketchy to say the least.

No, it isn't.


I'd rather go with Professor David...no not the David King version but
Professor David Bellamy. He clashed with this man earlier this summer (read
link below)

http://www.globalwarmingissues.com/v...change+science


Bellamy is lying in this article. He says increasing levels of CO2 will
not heat up the atmosphere. (Poppycock, he calls it. I wonder what his
explantion of the temperature on the surface of Venus might be?) Bellamy
has absolutely no atmospheric science credibility and has carried out no
theoretical or practical experiments to support this claim. This is why he
could never get such comments published in any bone fide scientific
publication, but has to rely upon scribling to the Daily Mail instead.

How pathetic.


Bellamy joins all those "Economists" and Fossil Fuel "Industrialists" who
think they have greater knowledge of the physics of our atmosphere than
qualified physicists. Bellamy has never even studied physics.


But we *do* know he is Right Wing. What a prat. And an ideologically led
fool, to boot.


No Cheers,

keith




---
Iraq: 6 thousand million pounds, 70 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

In message , John Hall
writes
In article ,
Alastair McDonald k
writes:
snip

The idea that Kyoto, which will cause the US to reduce its oil imports,
will damage the US economy is palpably false since it will keep
money in the US and make it richer.

Presumably the US government doesn't agree with that analysis.

California still does pretty much, in part thanks to leadership from
Arnie.

The central administration have been lobbied heavily by the US oil
industry (notably Exxon & Texaco) and big three US auto makers. The
latter are working hard to get average vehicle fuel economy down to
single digit mpg. A typical US made car needs roughly twice the engine
capacity of a European model to be usable.

No regrets fuel economy and energy efficiency measures can mostly be
done profitably or at neutral business cost. However, in an environment
where fuel is dirt cheap there is no incentive to look for energy
savings. Plenty of US car brochures do not state their fuel economy (or
lack thereof).

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Peter Hearnden wrote:
However, there are others who, and they're not all totally nuts, think there
is plenty left.There is certainly lots of tar sand.

I suspect, (well, it's clear isn't it?) humanity will do pretty much
anything to get oil.


I remember someone on News 24 saying, when US/UK first invaded Iraq, "I
think we are witnessing the first of what will become seen as the 'Oil
Wars'".

I am deeply pessimistic about the future - the pursuit of energy will be
our downfall I suspect...

--
Chris
www.ivy-house.net
Swaffham, Norfolk

Felly sgrifennodd Keith Dancey :
Because of my job I get to hear, first hand, from the scientists who advise
Governments. One piece of information being placed before politicians is
that global oil production will peak by 2020.

I've just gone hunting for my New Scientist, but failed to find it so
this is from memory, but there was an article in there this week (or last
- I'm not quite sure) which said we had enough fossil oil for 70 years yet,
and that we've only extracted about a third of what is economically viable.

As I said, this is from memory, but I think I remembered it right.

If this is the case, it's not good news for global warming.

Adrian

--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

LOL Keith, talk about plain speaking, I love the style.
Do you sleep at night ? Or are you always waiting for the "knock on the
door".

ATB,

Will.
--

" Visit Haytor meteorological office at
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...met_office.htm "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Lawrence"
writes:


Sir David King is a ideologically led fool.


In your opinion.


His background is sketchy to say the least.

No, it isn't.


I'd rather go with Professor David...no not the David King version but
Professor David Bellamy. He clashed with this man earlier this summer
(read
link below)


http://www.globalwarmingissues.com/v...=details&Artic
le=GW+is+poppycock&cat=Climate+change+science


Bellamy is lying in this article. He says increasing levels of CO2 will
not heat up the atmosphere. (Poppycock, he calls it. I wonder what his
explantion of the temperature on the surface of Venus might be?) Bellamy
has absolutely no atmospheric science credibility and has carried out no
theoretical or practical experiments to support this claim. This is why
he
could never get such comments published in any bone fide scientific
publication, but has to rely upon scribling to the Daily Mail instead.

How pathetic.


Bellamy joins all those "Economists" and Fossil Fuel "Industrialists" who
think they have greater knowledge of the physics of our atmosphere than
qualified physicists. Bellamy has never even studied physics.


But we *do* know he is Right Wing. What a prat. And an ideologically led
fool, to boot.


No Cheers,

keith




---
Iraq: 6 thousand million pounds, 70 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message
...


I've just gone hunting for my New Scientist, but failed to find it so
this is from memory, but there was an article in there this week (or last
- I'm not quite sure) which said we had enough fossil oil for 70 years yet,
and that we've only extracted about a third of what is economically viable.


'Economically viable'. Well that's just the crux of the matter, isn't it?
If there are no cheaper alternatives available then oil costing $100
a barrel will be 'economically viable'.
In one sense I consider the current high oil price to be no bad thing.
It should start to stimulate development of alternative energy sources
which would now be starting to appear more cost effective.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

In message , Keith Dancey
writes
In article , "Lawrence"
writes:


I'd rather go with Professor David...no not the David King version but
Professor David Bellamy. He clashed with this man earlier this summer (read
link below)

Your ideology is blinding you to the scientific evidence. There are two
separate issues here that are clear and distinct.

1. Is there evidence of an anthropogenic component in global warming?

Yes. The scientific evidence is now pretty compelling (see for example
last years review in The Economist). Even the scientific GW sceptics
cannot balance the numbers for the last few decades without including
greenhouse gas forcing into their (contrived) models.

2. Is Kyoto worthwhile?

This one is more difficult. No. It probably is nothing like enough to
make a real difference, but it was at least a start in the right
direction. And there is really no excuse not to make energy efficiency
savings where possible.

http://www.globalwarmingissues.com/v...view=details&A
rticle=GW+is+poppycock&cat=Climate+change+scienc e


Bellamy is lying in this article. He says increasing levels of CO2 will
not heat up the atmosphere. (Poppycock, he calls it. I wonder what his
explantion of the temperature on the surface of Venus might be?) Bellamy
has absolutely no atmospheric science credibility and has carried out no
theoretical or practical experiments to support this claim. This is why he
could never get such comments published in any bone fide scientific
publication, but has to rely upon scribling to the Daily Mail instead.

How pathetic.

Unfortunately there are a lot of readers of the Daily Mail that believe
every word written in it. Sad but true.

But we *do* know he is Right Wing. What a prat. And an ideologically led
fool, to boot.

NB Right wing lunatic fringe. Remember that in the UK the global warming
issue does not split cleanly along party political lines like it does in
the USA.

It was a Tory government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that
first took global warming seriously and raised its profile at cabinet
level. The Labour government have not actually progressed things much
beyond the initiatives that she started. Recently they even relaxed some
targets.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:
Felly sgrifennodd Keith Dancey :

Because of my job I get to hear, first hand, from the scientists who advise
Governments. One piece of information being placed before politicians is
that global oil production will peak by 2020.

I've just gone hunting for my New Scientist, but failed to find it so
this is from memory, but there was an article in there this week (or last
- I'm not quite sure) which said we had enough fossil oil for 70 years yet,
and that we've only extracted about a third of what is economically viable.

As I said, this is from memory, but I think I remembered it right.


Sorry I haven't read that, but be aware that there is a huge amount of
misinformation being banded about known oil reserves. The crisis which
hit Shell earlier this year (they were exposed as having exagerated their
known reserves, and NOT by New Scientist! but by an "insider" with a
conscience) is just the tip of the iceberg.

As the crisis deepens (ever-increasing demand exceeding supply, which itself
begins to fall away, making matters rapidly worse) poor quality supplies
will have to be tapped, driving up the price in a most dramatic fashion.




If this is the case, it's not good news for global warming.

The outlook for Global Warming is quite dreadful, anyway:-(


No Cheers,

keith



---
Iraq: 6 thousand million pounds, 70 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...