Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


The Reid wrote:
Following up to Dave Frightens Me

I agree, but I think that's a desirable goal. There isn't any reason
why human population must perpetually increase. And if it does
perpetually increase, eventually everyone will starve under the most
dire conditions, since the resources of the planet are finite.

I think we'll have a bit of warning.

you don't think we are already getting them? Warming, species
loss,oil and gas supplies....

Global warming has been going on for thousands of years. Species loss
is no greater than any other time in history and is offset by species
gain. Oil reserves will last at least another century by which time we
can easily have alternate energy sources (if the environmental nuts
will allow it, that is).

Just what on earth makes you believe that?

Believe what? That the earth goes through perioidic warming and cooling
cycles and that we have been warming since the last ice age 10,000
years or so ago? That there are more known oil reserves now that ever
in history? Its documented fact.

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:13:03 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On 20 Jul 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Global warming has been going on for thousands of years. Species loss
is no greater than any other time in history and is offset by species
gain. Oil reserves will last at least another century by which time we
can easily have alternate energy sources (if the environmental nuts
will allow it, that is).


Just what on earth makes you believe that?

When I was in high school, I think I heard we had about 30 years of oil
left.

I think you heard wrong then.

And you seem to be hearing wrong now. Current proven reserves are
estimated to last 50-100 years. Particularly with $75 oil. Reserves
that were previously written off as to expensive to exploit are now
being reconsidered.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The Reid writes:

there were a number of new fields discovered in my lifetime,
there is also the issue of using shale oil at much higher prices.
Are the worlds resources finite?
Is the worlds ability to absorb pollution finite?

I think the real limiting factor on the use of fossil fuels is the
pollution produced by burning them, not the actual amount available in
the ground.

But "The Reid" didn't say anything about limited use available. He
rather specifically said "supply" and that simply isn't true.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:39:06 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

I think you spend that much now indoors anyway.

It's getting to be hot nine months of the year where I live
now--something I never expected even in my wildest nightmares.

Why not move to a cooler city if it's a nightmare where you are?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:39:33 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

It's not a bad summation though. Can you counter it?

I don't use emotional arguments in my discussions.

So you can't counter it without emotion? That would mean he was
correct.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 23 Jul 2006 01:34:52 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:13:03 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On 20 Jul 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:

Global warming has been going on for thousands of years. Species loss
is no greater than any other time in history and is offset by species
gain. Oil reserves will last at least another century by which time we
can easily have alternate energy sources (if the environmental nuts
will allow it, that is).


Just what on earth makes you believe that?

When I was in high school, I think I heard we had about 30 years of oil
left.

I think you heard wrong then.

And you seem to be hearing wrong now. Current proven reserves are
estimated to last 50-100 years. Particularly with $75 oil. Reserves
that were previously written off as to expensive to exploit are now
being reconsidered.

I am waiting for a cite from you for that.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me writes:

Why not move to a cooler city if it's a nightmare where you are?

I keep hoping the heat will let up. After all, it has only been like
this for the last decade. Historically Paris has been much cooler.
If certain ocean currents were displaced, the temperature might drop
by 10° C again, making it a cool city once more.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Frightens Me writes:

So you can't counter it without emotion?

My original argument did that, and he ignored it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Frightens Me writes:
Why not move to a cooler city if it's a nightmare where you are?

I keep hoping the heat will let up. After all, it has only been like
this for the last decade. Historically Paris has been much cooler.
If certain ocean currents were displaced, the temperature might drop
by 10° C again, making it a cool city once more.

What are your plans for displacing these ocean currents?

miguel
--
Photos from 40 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Australia; Malaysia; Burma; Thailand; Hong Kong
Airports of the world: http://airport.u.nu

Miguel Cruz writes:

What are your plans for displacing these ocean currents?

None, but some scientists say they may be displaced by global warming.
If they stop bringing warm water to Europe, the temperatures in Europe
might drop by 10° C.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.