The wish to give an impression of a world oil shortage is one of the rare examples of the Green movement and Big oil working, if not together at least to the same end.

Take first the world's oil companies, it's obvious they wish to create an impression that oil reserves are low, although not too low as it hurts the share price so they maintain a delicate balancing act of pretending their reserves are running down leading to a hike in barrel price with new "discoveries" which help to keep the Stock price up where it's needed. The Shell situation was a classic example of this, their reserves were too high so a little recaculation was called for.

For the Green movement the motivations are of course different. For some it's Climate Change, for others a wish to see private transport restricted for social control reasons.

The facts however are clear. There is no world oil shortage and at even the predicted increased levels of consumption more than enough to last for hundreds of years to come.

Of course the debate over climate change being linked to fossil fuel use is far from proven for many of us.


Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates.
In reality the annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. I have long wondered what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. Again in reality anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." We can also note that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature.
We can debunk the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Fallacy 4: Global temperature has increased over the past two decades.
Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies has increased so dramatically that much - if not all - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the urban heat island phenomenon.

Fallacy 5: Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming. No way, climate models predict significant warming of the lower atmosphere, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record. Hence, the only data set that provides a truly global perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides "direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis."

Fallacy 6: Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past.
This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by many who cite the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.

Fallacy 7: There are reliable forecasts of future climate.
No credence can be given to this claim until the models making the forecasts have been verified, which likely will not happen anytime soon. In fact the earth's atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years. The reason? Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters.

Fallacy 8: Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway.
First of all, as noted above, there may not be any warming currently occurring. Second, as has been demonstrated, much of what may be occurring may be natural. Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.

Fallacy 9: Global warming will produce a rise in sea level.
Again, not so. For one thing, there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century.

Fallacy 10: Global warming will result in more extreme weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century. In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more stable climate.

Fallacy 11: IPCC's predictions are reasonable. In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently unreasonable. Over half of their predictions, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing twice as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.

Fallacy 12: Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models. It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, (1) "observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models," (2) so fantastically less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.


The case is not being made but for once the Green movement is being helped by the mainstream media who too lazy or too ignorant to report the real facts are blindly going along with the whole Climate Change theory as it makes a nice tie in to any flood, storm or big wave story. Well informed organisations like Greepeace are well aware of the facts but of course fund raising is more important than the truth.

As a final paragraph I will answer in advance the inevitble responses:

No I don't know and have never in the ast worked for an oil company or government
No I have no funding from either
No I am not a "Troll"
Yes I have read in depth nearly all the papers in relation to this subject

Rainman - you are a fucking liar so fuck off with your amerikkkan mates.

You forget to consider the effects of Global Dimming, the observed phenomena of less sun light reaching the Earth's surface due to the increase in the number of particles in the atmosphere caused by the burning of solid and heavy fuels such as wood, coal and diesel. This phenomena may be masking the Green house effect, meaning that the threat from Global warming is actually more serious than stated; especially since many Western countries have taken measures to reduce the level of smog and particulate emissions from vehicles and factories.


See  http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001938.html

show links to your evidence of all this oil as the info I found on the USGS site does not match yours

 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs070-03/fs070-03.html

 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0026-02/fs-0026-02-p2.html

Graham,

Interesting post. One thing i would point out is, although you conclude by saying that, "even the predicted increased levels of consumption more than enough to last for hundreds of years to come", we will feel the squeeze not when oil runs out but just after it peaks. As soon as oil production peaks there will be a fall, that fall in supply will see a rise in price and consequently the huge social, economic consequences will be felt much sooner than the day when the last barrel is emptied.

I've also read that one problem is that you don't know that you're in a peak until you've come out of it because predicting oil supplies is so difficult.

Regards,
Peter.

The "Global Dimming" theory is just that a theory. The difference between real science and wacky ideas is their ability to be proven by individuals different to those who postulated them. Global Dimming is frankly a lot more to do with the publicity surrounding a book launch than real climate study. Professor Godwin O.P Obasi, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation described it as,

"The latest in a number of misinformed predictions and ideas that do not reflect reality"

Peter,

Thanks for the response and yes to an extent I agree with you however the key point I was making is how the public are being routingly lied to on this issue by both Big Oil and The Green Movement. The motivations of both are of course different but the result is the same. the public are being sold along the idea of a soon to be oil shortage. For governments worldwide this has of course been an easy way to justify high fuel taxation.

As another poster noted this widespread lie is reinforced by lazy journalists and misinformed "experts" who are happy to repeat the same old story without checking any facts. I understand why Greenpeace for example want to keep the fallacy alive but I thnk the public deserves to know the truth.

Of course it does trigger another argument - if the US doesn't need Iraqi oil (and it doesn't, US untapped reserves alone give it at least 150 years worth) why did they invade ?

there are other things to consider besides reserves and climate. i do not claim to be expert but i've read as many reports as the rest of you postulating links between motor-vehicle-sourced urban atmosphere pollution and respiratory illness.

WOW, what an incredible concentration of climate sceptics on one thread, I lose count at 3 or 4...

I thought this was a newswire - silly me.

If you were in the newspapers I'd say you were oil corporation-funded and either the same person or working for a PR agency. But you're not. You're on Indymedia. You're probably just a bit defensive about your lifestyle and not wanting to face up to any responsibility for your impacts - let them die on the other side of the world, just fill up my 4x4 and trust in technology and corporations. Never mind. We'll all die.

There's lots you could find through a search on climate change, on 'peak oil' and what this means about when it'll run out, and the effects on our lives well well before then.

Get out there and enjoy the weather; maybe even think about taking action to make the world a better place. I've got things to do that are not 'intellectual' masturbating - seeya.

sorry, hadn't noticed Graham you've posted your 'info' on other threads too, where it's even less relevant.

Get a life and stop trying to provoke people until you've grown up to at least age 10.

Sidelines,

I have to say I found your comments a little offensive with talk of ''intellectual' masturbating ' and suggestions of oil company funding however lets put that to one side for a moment. I'm not really sure what you mean by being "defensive over my lifestyle", if it helps I'm a semi retired research engineer currently working on a sustainable energy project for an African government. Part of my research involved trying to establish a definitive date for the end of widepsread oil availability hence my current contribution. I don't drive a 4x4 but do have a tatty Ford Focus and a bike if that helps you with your profile of me. I am well aware of the impact mankind has on the planet because it has formed the majority of my work for the past sixteen years.

There are two facts here that should be in the wider domain hence my original post;

i) The public are being lied to about the amount of oil there is
ii) The mainstream media are not reporting this lie despite it being easy to establish with little research.


Both of these bother me a great deal and I regard Indymedia a fine way to get that message to the public.

Boy whne you're wrong you're wrong.. Tell us more about shale oil(its not really oil but another material calledkerogen)

As geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:
The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States
really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil"
equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil
reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil
reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil"
out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is
not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the
net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is
"recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure.

 http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/youngqu1.html Dr. Walter Youngquist paper
also defines what are alternative energy sources as well as the myths and
realities behind them. It very educational too.. Unless hard decision are
made soon, our currently lifestyle is in danger of going by the wayside..

And in case you're not reading this information in the local news media,
many financial institution are stating the world production of oil will be
SHORT of DEMAND by about 8-9 MILLION per DAY in about 3 short years.. That
would relate to about $100 a barrel or $4.00 a gallon..

We live in interesting time..

whoever wrote this article might as well have his good reasons and we, the Peak Oil crowd, might be all wrong.

Those are not good enough reasons to relax and not keep looking for alternative, cleaner sources of energy; and certainly there are not good enough reasons why the american middle - upper class should continue guzzling the planet's energy at the expenses of everyone else's economic well being and health.

Even if the oil is still plentiful, there are no excuses for the unbelievably eco-unfriendly way we use it. If it's not the collapse of an oil addicted economy, it will be the environment that will plunge us back to a new middle age era.

Best

Emiliano "Zapata"

Graham,

If oil from oils shales will save us from running out of oil and the US has, according to your figures, 7.5 times more oil than Saudi Arabia, why is it a major US problem that they are dependent on foreign oil, and why has US oil production fallen for the past 35 years?

How much of this 2000 Billion barrels has been successfully converted into usable oil?

The answer to this conundrum appears to be two-fold - oil shale breaks even when the oil price is $20+ and the conversion process creates major environmental problems. When you add this to that the fact that extraction of oil from shale costs almost as much energy as is gained, and the more expensive refinement costs associated with oil shale, you can quickly see that this is not going to be a panacea to the energy crisis.

To use an analogy, just as you can die of thirst while on the ocean, you can have a huge oil shale and no gas in the tank