Solutions to Climate Change ?- Follow up to previous post
No friends of Big Oil on Indymedia | 30.04.2007 08:24
I recently posted my contribution to the debate over Climate Change listing how many people had been fooled by the oil industry into thinking that mankind was in some way responsible and how much of what has been accepted as fact is in reality guesswork, conjecture and in most cases simply lies. I listed six examples. For reasons I was at first unable to understand the post was hidden however I see from reading a special private section that the Indymedia worker hid it because I did not provide proof of my information. I did not see where it was requied to provide proof and indeed many other stories don't contain them however as I have a wish for people to see the truth about how they are being manipulated by Big Oil I have below detailed web links under each relevant section.
I trust this will be sufficient.
I trust this will be sufficient.
Solutions to Climate Change ?
29.04.2007 11:49
Why are you doing the work of the oil industry for them ?
Peak Oil, Man made global warming, rising sea levels the latest in a long line of scare stories created by oil company front organisations and eagerly swallowed by gullible activists all over the developed world.
Ask yourself important questions before doing this. For example
A) If we are approaching Peak Oil why does the USA alone still have nearly 300 years of oil reserves on its mainland which it refuses to allow to be released ? (clue neither Boeing or Airbus have any teams investigating alternative fuels for aircraft)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm
B) Why is the UK still refusing BP to drill for the oil and gas which is below the Falkland Islands 25 years after the war there ?
http://www.american.edu/ted/falkoil.htm
C) If global tempretures are rising why is Northern Europe colder now than it was during the Roman invasion of the area ? (clue: the Roman Governor of Britain grew vines for wine on his Northumberland estate)
http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/uk-wine-show-detail.asp?id=35&title=UK-Wine-Show-35-Richard-Selley-Global-Warming-and-Wine-in-Britain
D) If sea levels are rising why is the sea around Australia and New Zealand falling ?
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports.shtml
E) If ice shelves are supposidly melting why do the most recent figures from the Antartic Survey Team (2006) show the majority about the same as they have been for 400 years ?
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/GRADES/index.html
F) Why does not a single recognised independent Geologist support the mankind influenced climate change theories ?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/308/5720/398.pdf
The oil companies and their PR companies invented all of the above and their tame scientists gave it credibility, now Western governments are jumping on the bandwagon. Big Oil and Governments support it because it allows them to increase profits and taxes and control economic development in the Third World. Fools like Greepeace fell for it because it's what they wanted to hear.
Read, Check, Discuss. Don't swallow what you have heard. It's the biggest lie in the world at the moment.
29.04.2007 11:49
Why are you doing the work of the oil industry for them ?
Peak Oil, Man made global warming, rising sea levels the latest in a long line of scare stories created by oil company front organisations and eagerly swallowed by gullible activists all over the developed world.
Ask yourself important questions before doing this. For example
A) If we are approaching Peak Oil why does the USA alone still have nearly 300 years of oil reserves on its mainland which it refuses to allow to be released ? (clue neither Boeing or Airbus have any teams investigating alternative fuels for aircraft)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/May/AirForceenergy.htm B) Why is the UK still refusing BP to drill for the oil and gas which is below the Falkland Islands 25 years after the war there ?
http://www.american.edu/ted/falkoil.htm C) If global tempretures are rising why is Northern Europe colder now than it was during the Roman invasion of the area ? (clue: the Roman Governor of Britain grew vines for wine on his Northumberland estate)
http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/uk-wine-show-detail.asp?id=35&title=UK-Wine-Show-35-Richard-Selley-Global-Warming-and-Wine-in-Britain D) If sea levels are rising why is the sea around Australia and New Zealand falling ?
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports.shtml E) If ice shelves are supposidly melting why do the most recent figures from the Antartic Survey Team (2006) show the majority about the same as they have been for 400 years ?
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/BAS_Science/programmes2005-2010/GRADES/index.html F) Why does not a single recognised independent Geologist support the mankind influenced climate change theories ?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/308/5720/398.pdf The oil companies and their PR companies invented all of the above and their tame scientists gave it credibility, now Western governments are jumping on the bandwagon. Big Oil and Governments support it because it allows them to increase profits and taxes and control economic development in the Third World. Fools like Greepeace fell for it because it's what they wanted to hear.
Read, Check, Discuss. Don't swallow what you have heard. It's the biggest lie in the world at the moment.
No friends of Big Oil on Indymedia
Additions
Doesn't compute
30.04.2007 16:19
"A) If we are approaching Peak Oil why does the USA alone still have nearly 300 years of oil reserves on its mainland which it refuses to allow to be released ? (clue neither Boeing or Airbus have any teams investigating alternative fuels for aircraft)"
Link one claims that the USA has proven reserves of 21.4Bn barrels . Here ( http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm) we learn that USA consumption of oil in 2003 was 20,034,000 barrels per day (2,.034,000 x 365 - an annual consumption of 7,312,410,000 barrels which means 21.4Bn barrels would last 3 =years NOT 300 - and of course consumption is rising)
For example, here: ( http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html) we learn that 2001 consumption was 19,993,000,000 barrels per day. Here: ( http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/NfPAGMnotes_feb07.html) we learn that USA oil consumption in 2004 was 7,600,000,000 barrels. Contrary to the claim that Being and Airbus are not investigating alternative fuels, we are supplied with a link which fails to mention Boeing or Airbus, but which notes that:
"The Air Force is proposing new measures to cut aviation fuel consumption by 10 percent within the next six years. Among the initiatives is to substitute up to 50 percent of the fleet’s conventional fuel with synthetic alternatives by 2016, officials said."
Here: ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/22/cnboeing22.xml ) we learn that:
"Boeing, the US aerospace giant best known for making the 747 jumbo jet, is working on plans to develop a "biofuel blend" derived from plants or algae that could power conventional jets. Executives at the company said a hybrid fuel could be available within five years, using the same engines that currently propel aircraft."
Hows this ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427343/) for a straight contradiction of the claim?:
"Boeing researchers say the practical concerns go beyond just the rising cost of jet fuel.
“We are interested in alternative fuels because we want to make sure that there’s fuel available for the future,” Glover said."
Hardly worth checking the rest of the links, is it?
Link one claims that the USA has proven reserves of 21.4Bn barrels . Here (
http://www.cslforum.org/usa.htm) we learn that USA consumption of oil in 2003 was 20,034,000 barrels per day (2,.034,000 x 365 - an annual consumption of 7,312,410,000 barrels which means 21.4Bn barrels would last 3 =years NOT 300 - and of course consumption is rising) For example, here: (
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html) we learn that 2001 consumption was 19,993,000,000 barrels per day. Here: ( http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/NfPAGMnotes_feb07.html) we learn that USA oil consumption in 2004 was 7,600,000,000 barrels. Contrary to the claim that Being and Airbus are not investigating alternative fuels, we are supplied with a link which fails to mention Boeing or Airbus, but which notes that: "The Air Force is proposing new measures to cut aviation fuel consumption by 10 percent within the next six years. Among the initiatives is to substitute up to 50 percent of the fleet’s conventional fuel with synthetic alternatives by 2016, officials said."
Here: (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/22/cnboeing22.xml ) we learn that: "Boeing, the US aerospace giant best known for making the 747 jumbo jet, is working on plans to develop a "biofuel blend" derived from plants or algae that could power conventional jets. Executives at the company said a hybrid fuel could be available within five years, using the same engines that currently propel aircraft."
Hows this (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427343/) for a straight contradiction of the claim?: "Boeing researchers say the practical concerns go beyond just the rising cost of jet fuel.
“We are interested in alternative fuels because we want to make sure that there’s fuel available for the future,” Glover said."
Hardly worth checking the rest of the links, is it?
unconvinced
why, why, why...
30.04.2007 16:35
Why does the original poster use a series of unrelated links and unsupported assertions instead of a reasoned argument?
Why do they mix up two completely different ideas, i.e. "peak oil" and "climate change," just because both happen to involve fossil fuels?
Why do they post "evidence" that consists of mainly unavailable, inconclusive or meaningless links?
I guess it's because they're muddying the waters, either for money or just out of sheer paranoia.
Why do they mix up two completely different ideas, i.e. "peak oil" and "climate change," just because both happen to involve fossil fuels?
Why do they post "evidence" that consists of mainly unavailable, inconclusive or meaningless links?
I guess it's because they're muddying the waters, either for money or just out of sheer paranoia.
emigre
Comments
Display the following 14 comments