To Bully the scientific community to validate bugus theory

I think that you're ignoring oil shale though XerxesX. If you count oil shale as a viable source of oil (it's only a matter of time before someone finds a way to extract oil from oil shale cheaply) then Canada has the single largest naturally occuring oil reserves in the world. In addition, the developement of thermal depolymerization (otherwise known as thermal conversion) could be a major player in the world energy market. Turkey guts are remarkably cheap when you consider that you can turn them into $70+ per barrel oil.

 

Another thing to consider is that it not necessary that they find a way to cheaply remove oil from shale. at some point as crude becomes more expensive it simply becomes economically fees able to remove oil from shale.

In other words if it costs 110.00 a barrel to remove oil from shale. At precisely that point the oil reaches that price it becomes fees able to remove oil from shale. Oil companies will be afraid to touch it as a viable source of revenue because foreign oil suppliers can reduce their price it will eventually however become a viable source.

 

Eventually, but what is the cost of dumping all of that additional carbon into the biosphere?

 

Now there is where you get to the highly questionable theory of effect of carbon emissions.

 

Can you possibly believe that there will be no effect from dumping nearly one trillion tons of carbonates into the atmosphere?

 

Don't kid yourself with the numbers. Are your sure its one trillion and not a hundred trillian tons? Seems like I might of heard just last quarter it was 13 trillion 658billion 863million995 tons. My truck alone dropped off a pound on the way to the quicky mart.

 

Listen dipshit. One gallon of gas produces nine pounds of CO2 when burned. Look up the chemistry.

 

Thats what I'm talking about My truck dropped off a pound going to the quicky mart and back. ..... Did I say going to the Quicky mart? I really ment going to the quicky mart and back.

 

So are you still trying to argue that will have no effect?

 

I'm saying that before cars horses and buggies gave off a lot of methane gas and people built fires for heat. If we still used fires for heat hell there would not be any trees and burning wood, coal, peat (did I spell that right?) give off a lot of carbon also. I'm also saying that if the theoretical number were 110 dollars consistently for a barrel of oil then its also likely that other alternative sources could be feasible. The most interesting I have recently found that the new hydrogen technology. Its is supposed to more stabile then pure hydrogen. Let me look I'll see if I can find the link.

I'm saying you can spin the numbers till your head spins but don't fall for all the hype.

 

Which is a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Are you assuming that burning all of those fossil fuels and releasing all of that carbon back into the atmosphere will have no effect?

 

This actually sounds quite promising Aquygen Gas

Just google , yahoo, dogpile, Altavista whatever you do "Aquagen Gas"

Interesting stuff.

 

Nice work attempting to change the subject. If you can't win just change the subject right Joe?

 

If you read my post I did not dodge the question. There is a big ass population out there and toilets will have to be flushed. Toasters will still make toast. Heaters will still heat homes. Air conditioners will cool. Whatever alternative fuel will have to be supplied. Take Electric hybrid cars for example it can be argued quite compellingly that they are worse on the environment with the acid and lead. Plus the electricity that charges the battery comes from a plant somewhere that is likely burning fuel to create electricity. The answer is not so easy as you pretend. And Aquagen Gas is a promising solution. If cars are properly engineered I could see 100 percent increases in fuel economy and clean burning also. That helps an awful lot. I do not assume to know the details yet but if some shade tree guys can get 50 percent better rigging something up a car properly engineered would do better no?

 

Of course, but you still didn't answer the question.

 

Ok Dio I thought I answered these questions I'll try again. No one knows really. That is the answer. Also Another part of the answer is that there is hope in other technologies however we have to be carefull its a tricky puzzle.

The additional is just a small fraction of what nature dumps into the biosphere.

 

Actually, it's about 25% of what nature dumps into the atmosphere.

 

Dio you really need to add about five zeros befor that 25. maybe .0000025 %

 

No, really, it isn't at all. I don't know what scientific journals you read, probably none since you chalk so much up as liberal propoganda, but the estimates on human CO2 contributions to the atmospheric Carbon content run anywhere from 5% to 30% based on what I've read and seen. Volcanoes release quite a bit of Carbon into the atmosphere, yes, but decomposition releases atmospheric carbon. That doesn't add to the total amount of Carbon in the atmosphere. You really need to read up on what's going on and open your eyes. Your dismissal of the idea as liberal propoganda belies it's importance and impact it could have on human quality of life.

 

Even amongst all knowing scientist theories change regularly Dio. Fact is Volcanoes dwarf all others but its true there are other natural sources of so called carbon emissions pollution. This just proves my point all the more.

I do not think you are buying all the worst case scenario theories as fact. I think you are probably perceiving it as a prudent move to assume the worst just in case and any other attitude as being reckless.

On that note I'm just saying that you are being manipulated. And the whole intention of mine was to point out that people within high positions of influence were not being totally forthcoming and manipulating people like you. You need to look at the motive, who benefits, who is sincere.