Friday, November 27, 2009

The Convienient Truth

Life without oil is improbable. We use many byproducts from petroleum to power our economy and individual based items we use every day; from house hold disinfectants to fuel for our transportation. We are a society based on oil and have been since we first discovered oil in the united states. Today the United States consumes about 24% of the oil produced in a day while the second leading oil consumer, china, is at 9% a day (Oil). Many believe that the consumption of oil is exceeding what the environment can withstand in terms of green house gases and are looking toward government to step in. However the evidence to support this over dramatized matter of Anthropogenic Global Warming is completely bogus.

Recently, the head scientists leading the Anthropogenic Global Warming ideology, has been proven fraud by an unknown internet hacker who released 61 megabytes of confidential files from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (Climategate). Through these released suggest: "Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more" (Climategate). This scandal that created the manipulation and exaggeration of the climate change of the world is known as Climategate, which is the biggest scandal in the history of the scientific community of our age. Who can be trusted to tell us what is happening, if not the scientists?

Most data supporting the AGW theory has come through Climategate scientists and has been exaggerated or pulled out of thin air based on speculations. One example of a bogus evidence is the tree-ring theory which is said to prove climate change. The tree-ring theory is derived from scientists connected with Climategate which basically says that the rings in trees are in direct correlation with the climate and Carbon Dioxide levels from a study done on THREE trees from Siberia; proven false just recently by studies done on other forestry. Though the scientists knew their evidence was false, they proclaimed that the truthfulness of their evidence directly to the media of the world and through Al gore who proclaim an "immediate freeze" of greenhouse gases (After).

"Supporting" data for the actually climate change has almost been made up. Through the last 20 years the climate change has not constantly risen and has" worried" the Climategate scientists. In one hacked email, it proclaims to have tampered with data to "hid" the decline"(Climategate). The actually email states, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"(Climategate).

Life without our precious fossil fuels is improbable and cannot be expected to last forever. However, that does not mean it cannot be used and therefore should be used until it society deems it invaluable. The greenhouse gases that are given off by the burning of fossil fuels has no affect on the environment and does not cause any sort of Global Warming. In reality, what evidence does the government have to pass "Global Warming bills" which are meant to "help" the environment? None, the government is included in Climategate scandal designing bogus bills to "help" the environment when all the tax payer money is sent to other fields completely separate from a green environment strategy.



The Italian said...

The earth naturally heats and cools itself, it has been for millions/billions of years. This global warming is PART of the earth's natural cylce. But I think that the rise in human pollution and use of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in the rate of global warming. So global warming naturally occurs, but when you add humans (their pollution, etc...) into the mix, the process speeds up.

And yes, we CAN live lives without fossil fuels. If only the oil companies could see the profits they could reap from the new wave of renewable energy! We could eventually consider fossil fuels as a secondary energy source and use wind, solar, geothermal, etc.. to power everything. Sure, it might take a few years or decades, but life w/o fossil fuels is easily achievable.

A single wind turbine could power a house (and that is only a small one). The giant turbines you see in open fields could power entire cities with the energy they produce just from WIND. How much does it cost to harness that energy? Set up a turbine, get some men to supervise it, let the wind do the work. That's not much compared to the process we must go through to rig an oil platform, drill through the ocean bed (or land), pay for the damage done to the wildlife and enviroment (plus the oil spills), transfer barrels of oil by ship, truck, train, etc.... That seems to cost a lost more.

Mister T said...

alternatives to fossil fuels may be nice ideas as science projects, but in reality they don't measure up to the efficiancy and reliability of the big three: oil, coal, and natural gas. Though the Italian has a nice idea of increasing usage of alternative energy, it isn't practical. For example, a wind turbine takes fifty years just to generate enough power to pay for the amount of power used to build the turbine. That's assuming it lasts fifty years, which isn't likely. However, the one alternative source of energy we need to increase usage of is nuclear power. In fact, the fission of a single uranium atom it 10 million times greater than the combustion of a carbon atom in coal. The only downside of nuclear power is the positilities of nuclear meltdown, terrorist attacks, etc. Despite the risks, if the US comissioned just 10 more nuclear plants, we would see a significant decrease in the need for fossil fuels. Still, I believe that apart from nuclear energy, most other forms of alternative energy, especially wind turbines, are ineffeciant, and aren't worth putting money into. Especially when fossil fuels have worked just fine for us.