Are we running out of fossil fuels? - peak oil theory

[turnkey4099]

"indicate" And that is the operative word. They indicate. These are not first hand observed facts. And as someone earlier said "there is plenty of time for things that seem impossible to happen." This would also mean that things that seemed likely may not have been so, i.e. if it seems impossible to you that the "evidence and facts" mean something other than their current interpretation, it still may be that they do. It comes down to belief. Your belief is no more based on first hand observed facts than mine is.

Sorry but no. Anyone who brings the 'you weren't there' into a scientific discussion is on very weak ground.

Science is based on facts.

Belief is based on what? Faith?

Harry K

 

[BillyP]

Sorry but no. Anyone who brings the 'you weren't there' into a scientific discussion is on very weak ground.

Science is based on facts.

Belief is based on what? Faith?

Harry K

Isn't it a theory before it becomes fact?

 

[cp1969]

Science is based on observation. Facts are things that have been observed and their behavior can be predicted between known, observed limits. Extrapolating to make predictions beyond the range of known limits is risky at best and foolish at worst. Mass starvations were predicted to occur before the year 2000 based on the expected rate of food production and population increase.

If it happened, I must have missed it.

FWIW, Faith, belief, and science all merge at time T=0.

 

[MossRoad]

The whole global warming issue/non-issue aside... it isn't a good idea to pollute the air we breath or the water we drink. Whether the earth can absorb it or not really doesn't matter if you have to buy purified water because the clown next door dumped something in the woods and killed all the wells in your area. Yeash! We have our heads in the sand if we think humans don't have a HUGE impact on the environment. From the small scale guy that kills his neighborhood wells to a large chemical spill at a factory that kills all the fish in a river, to the output of hundreds of millions of tons of fuel being burned globally every day HAS TO MAKE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. That ain't so hard to understand.

 

[turnkey4099]

Isn't it a theory before it becomes fact?

No. Facts just are. They don't change. Hypothesis and theories attempt to explain those facts and are always subject to change.

Fact: gravity exists Theory: what is it, how does it work, etc.?


Thus we have, to take it a bit to the extreme,:

Fact: GW exists
Theory: It is caused by mankinds spewing CO2

Actually I don't agree with that theory. IMO we are only contributing to a natural cycle. I also don't consider it a 'scientific theory' as it hasn't been tested, studied, etc enough to come up to that level. AFICT it is still at the 'hypothesis' level if even that high.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

The whole global warming issue/non-issue aside... it isn't a good idea to pollute the air we breath or the water we drink. Whether the earth can absorb it or not really doesn't matter if you have to buy purified water because the clown next door dumped something in the woods and killed all the wells in your area. Yeash! We have our heads in the sand if we think humans don't have a HUGE impact on the environment. From the small scale guy that kills his neighborhood wells to a large chemical spill at a factory that kills all the fish in a river, to the output of hundreds of millions of tons of fuel being burned globally every day HAS TO MAKE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. That ain't so hard to understand.

Amen! And right on!

Harry K

 

[N80]

No. Facts just are. They don't change.

That's a very metaphysical interpretation of 'fact'. Human history, and the history of science itself, is pretty much just a long list of 'facts' that weren't facts after all. So while your take on 'facts' might be correct, it does not consider our human propensity to mistake fact from theory, myth or faith.

Fact: gravity exists Theory: what is it, how does it work, etc.?

Nah. We used to think the same sort of thing about time and light. We were wrong. If science has taught us anything it is that right here, right now, we are wrong about most of the things we believe to be 'scientifically proven.'

Thus we have, to take it a bit to the extreme,:

Fact: GW exists

I agree, still a bit extreme, and depends largely on how GW is defined. And that definition is impacted hugely by how you look at trends and time and also relies tremendously on historical data. The globe is a big complex thing. Our grasp of it remains extraordinarily tentative. We know less about the deep ocean floor than we do about the moon. Time is also a big complex thing that confounds us. And if you use the term 'global', you have to account for the whole thing and if you use the term 'warming' you indicate change which must account for time. So is it getting warmer over time? Maybe. Does it account for the whole globe and represent a significant change over significant time? I have my doubts.

Theory: It is caused by mankinds spewing CO2

Actually I don't agree with that theory. IMO we are only contributing to a natural cycle. I also don't consider it a 'scientific theory' as it hasn't been tested, studied, etc enough to come up to that level. AFICT it is still at the 'hypothesis' level if even that high.

Harry K

I agree with you 100% here. But what we do in response to the theory is the key. If the science is solid enough (it isn't) and if the consequences are as dire and immanent as Gore, et al would have us believe, then you could justify all sorts of things from abuses of civil liberties to war to 'population control'. Extreme problems require extreme measures, no?

It is how we respond to the problem that is key. And quite frankly, if Gore thinks the stakes are as high as he says, he isn't being as active or extreme as he needs to be, nor do his recommendations rise to the occasion.

I think some of us who have been labled 'complacent' are really just folks who believe that as a nation, and possibly a species, we can handle the changes in climate better than the attempts to change it back.

 

[MossRoad]

I think some of us who have been labled 'complacent' are really just folks who believe that as a nation, and possibly a species, we can handle the changes in climate better than the attempts to change it back.

I prefer to change 'complacent' to arrogant, as in "the arrogance of man".

 

[MikePA]

...as in "the arrogance of man".

The arrogance that believes we have a ability to change the climate?

 

[N80]

The arrogance that believes we have a ability to change the climate?

Exactly. Or even worse, that we can (or should) keep it from changing at all, and worse yet that we can change it back!