In article , "Col" writes:

"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.


I agree with you. However, the lead time for replacing oil and gas-fired
power stations is such that development needs to start "real soon now", or
else face "brownouts" or worse in the not too distant future...

I disagree with FOE about maintaining opposition to nuclear power. Renewable
energy has a vital role to play, but it cannot fully replace fossil-fuels
under all circumstances: fission, followed by fusion, is our "least worse"
alternative to fill the gap.


Cheers,

keith





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

In article , Succorso writes:
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...



I used to carry the sig "Operation Iraq Liberation: OIL, for short".

I think it is significant that "Iraq and Iran" were part of Bush's "axis
of evil", yet not Syria(!), for example.


We all know about Iraq's oil...

Iran has the world's second largest gas reserves and the fifth largest
oil reserves (Oil & Gas Journal) while Syria is expected to be a net
*importer* of oil within 10 years.

The US needs to secure the largest supplies... and doesn't, officially,
believe burning fossil fuels constitutes a threat.

I decided not to have any children because I thought future prospects were
so grim.




No Cheers,

keith



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

In article , "Will Hand" writes:

================================================= ===================
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".


I listen to Leonard Cohen:-)


"Everybody knows the war is over.
Everybody knows the "good guys" lost"


I wonder which election that was;-)



Cheers,

keith



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

Keith you'll hate this but I love Leornard Cohen too. You might think me
the "anti-scientist" and your'e probably right-but hey "I'm your man"
I bet you love that line in "Everybody knows" it goes something lika this

"every body knows that the sea is dead
there's going to be a metre on your head"

Lenny wrote that whilst resting in the Maldives.

Don't get to carried away with Lenny though His own views are that the 20th
and 21st century are hell. Now remember that line from the track The Future

"Give me crack and anal sex, take the only tree that's left and stick it up
the hole in your culture"

Hardly the sentiment of the Democrats or Labour Party - don't yer think?
Just take John Prescott.






"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Will Hand"
writes:

================================================ ====================
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".


I listen to Leonard Cohen:-)


"Everybody knows the war is over.
Everybody knows the "good guys" lost"


I wonder which election that was;-)



Cheers,

keith



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

"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...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?)

Err.... Floppycock




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.

Oh I get it David King does!! and relies on the theory of.....

Structure and Dynamics at Surfaces The objectives of our work are to provide
a detailed understanding at a molecular level of the relationship between
surface structure and molecular reactivity, focusing on catalysis. From the
understanding developed in this way new approaches are being developed to
control the rates and selectivity of catalytic reactions, and to design new
catalysts.


Whats the forecast for next week Mr King?

In addition he has two publications to scribe for
The Independant & The Guardian.



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



We also know that David King is left wing. plus the fact he was Knighted
under the Labour Party

No Co2 without fire mate..

Why would Bellamy lie?

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
I decided not to have any children because I thought future prospects were
so grim"

You seem to come across as left -wing Keith. If that was the case you are
obviously sensitive to womens rights, so I take it that if you have a
partner that the decision was mutual?

Well stop posting and make your contribution, if thats how you feel.

"Succorso" wrote in message
...

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

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

Keith Dancey wrote:
snip

I decided not to have any children because I thought future prospects were
so grim.


As some did 40-50 years ago because nuclear war was inevitable.

Graham

Lawrence wrote:


Why would Bellamy lie?



I'm not saying he's lying. When it comes to climatology, he's just
ignorant. The cobbler should stick to his last - instead of talking
cobblers.

Graham

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
Lawrence wrote:


Why would Bellamy lie?



I'm not saying he's lying. When it comes to climatology, he's just
ignorant. The cobbler should stick to his last - instead of talking
cobblers.

Graham

From what I have read it seems that Bellamy is just being selective with the
truth. There was a letter published in the New Scientist back in June from
four individuals who work for Rothamsted Research or the Hadley Centre for
Climate research stating that Bellamy has been highly selective with the
evidence he has used and therefore has only given one part of the story
which is highly misleading. This was in response to a letter written by
David Bellamy published on the 22nd of May putting foward his views. As far
as I know he did not respond.

Alan