It seems the two organizations are not telling the same story on climate change. Who’s right? Don’t ask me – I’m not a scientist. [No Al Gore jokes, please.-ed. I swore off them for Lent.] But whatever your stand on global warming, there’s plenty of reason to conserve oil.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Uh, if I’m not mistaken, Lent ended yesterday.
(Observe: a Buddhist telling a Jew about Christian ritual. is this a great country or what?)
Funny, when I glanced at the cover of Vanity Fair I thought it was an expose on green martians invading Hollywood.
Well, I do my part: I telecommute.
A side note: When the founder of Greenpeace and the guy who wrote the Whole Earth Catalogue come out in favor of nuclear power, I take it as a hopeful sign.
Roger,
The key thing to understand is that nobody knows what is going to happen to the climate, and what the impact of human-generated CO2 really is.
Those who claim to know, then, are wrong.
The problem is that the models that are used are overly simplistic, and reliable data to calibrate them does not exist – at least according to the climatologists I know.
My guess – anthopogenic CO2 will have a warming impact on whatever the underlying trend is, but htat’s just a guess.
Another comment: no matter what the climate folks say, human society today simply does not have the capability to significantly reduce carbon emissions by fiar. Our social engineering abilities, when we are talking about the whole world, especially including India and China, just don’t exist.
Which means that anyone advocating some painful measures only to reduce CO2 emissions is an arrogant fool.
On the other hand, reducing depending on petroleum imports is a good idea (but don’t include Canada in the list of places not to import from). At current prices, the US and Canada have enough petroleum equivalents in Canadian oil sands and Arizona coal fields to last a very long time if we “just” built the facilities to harvest it. And that is being done in Canada.
Roger – There is principle in scientific inquiry called “Occam’s Razor”, which basically says that you look for the most obvious explanation first. So it is with global warming: when global warming theories fail to account for the most obvious explanation (fluctuations in solar activity), they aren’t worthy of consideration. One of the most damning indictments of theories that blame human activity for global warming is that we have been in a (normal) period of active solar flare activity, one of the results of which has been a shrinking Martian polar cap. Hard to believe that are SUVs are affecting Martian atmospheres. Another giveaway is when these theories fail to account for the carbon cycles – C02 released in the atmosphere is absorbed by both the oceans (stimulating coral reef creation and plankton growth, among other things) and plant growth (forests, etc). Also, no one is sure whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere is cause or symptom of global warming…or natural geological activity, such as volcanoes and other goethermal activities. Glaciers have been retreating for many years – the Midwest is full of morraines left behind from the last ice age. The National Park Service map of Glacier Bay, Alaska shows that Glacier Bay’s glaciers have been retreating since well before the industrial revoluion, according to maps left by Russian explorers and fur hunters in the 1700s. All this is to say that more than a dose of skepticism is warranted about global warming theories backed by selective data.
My first thought on reading the opening sentence of Roger’s post was “Hmmmm, I wonder which is on which side.” The answer certainly wasn’t obvious. I finally decided it had to be the BBC on the doom and gloom side, so I was surprised when I clicked the link that it was a climate change skeptic article. Maybe there is a streak of sanity left at the Beeb.
Apparently our largest oil imports come from Canada (18%). Mexico, (15%) Saudia Arabia, 12% and Nigeria 12%, Venezuela, 10%, …
So driving down our use of oil will hurt Canada. Why do the environmentalists hate Canada?
In all seriousness, oil will be sold whether we buy it our not. If we don’t use it, China will. It ISN’T going unused.
http://www.gravmag.com/oilimports05.jpg
God, environmentalists make me seriously tired.
One of those wonderful words that lots of environmentalists need to learn is “fungible”.