That's a debate for another thread. I think a more effective path is challenging Gore's platform.

Best,

Kurt, what is the long term trend? What is the total sea ice volume as opposed to the area? What are the sea and air temperatures doing (trends). Who is the mystery author?

Already have & neither you nor these other nimrods have refuted them.

"Long term trend" is a critical consideration. Unfortunately this is unknown if you accept that "long term" means hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions or billions of years.

edit: I think we have a good grasp on relatively current air and sea temperatures, but what is driving the changes? No consensus and plenty of debate, which is good, IMO.

Volume is of course important; I'm just going by "extent" which is used in Goddard's article and by the NSIDC.

There just isn't enough data to draw meaningful conclusions, IMO.

The basis of this thread seems to be the veracity of Goddard's article, yes?

I'm going out into the atmosphere now; it's sunny and cool here in SoCal thanks to that cold water that flows down from the north. :D

Have fun guys, and be nice. There is a good debate here if some of you, IMO, would keep the snide remarks out of the discussion and stay on track.

Take care,

this is not about attacking the messenger. it's about who is the expert behind the article.

You never have. You paraphrase people (whom you never give credit to) about random things with the word "oil" in them, then claim that "theoretically recoverable" is the same as "known reserves". you have never that I've seen shown any quotes from people (credited or not) about clean burning of coal, and you have never that I've seen shown anything concerning turning coal into oil. Now, please show your work. I want to see who's turning coal into oil, and I want to see how we've been burning clean coal all over for a long time now, and I want to see the known undrilled reserves of oil that will support the US for a long time.

Some of what you're saying is completely false, some is kinda false, and some has a bit of basis in fact. Only by showing us where you get your facts can you clear this up.

Yawn. This tactic was lame the first time you tried it & it's still lame. Hustle up your own data.

He's really simply restating findings and images from what appear to be reliable sources. Mostly any one of us could have put together such an article.

I continue to believe the debate should center around what is being stated, but to each his own.

Now, I need to get some air!

I'm not making those claims, you are. I know what the data is going to say, and it is not what you're saying. So, bring some facts to the table that support yourself, or forever be recognized as the guy who straight face lies, and cannot even support his own claims.

Show us the multiple experts that prove that we have known undrilled oil resources that will support the US for "a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data where we have been burning clean coal, all over, "for a long time"

Show us facts/figures/quotes/papers/production data that shows where we are turning coal to oil and using it as a production fuel.

That's it. I've already let all of your other unsupported lies fall off the table months ago, but these are nice and fresh, so you should have no problem with supporting them with data. This is easy stuff here Mule, they expect the same quality of support in Jr. High.

There's been numerous post on untapped reserves, coal to oil, oil shale and nuclear. You disputed none. Find your own data or continue to look foolish.

Oil shale??? Nuclear??? Who mentioned those things??? And you say I'm the one that looks foolish... :rolleyes:

You very specifically straight face lied when you said that there was XYZ amount of known oil reserves in the shelf that is under drilling restrictions. That is FALSE, a complete and utter lie. Period, end of story. There is NO known value for the quantity of oil under the shelf, just as there is no known quantity of oil in the currently drillable regions. Simply stating that there is oil there would have been weak but acceptable, but to make claims of known large reserves there...especially hyperbolically large claims of supporting the US for decades to come...that's just false.

Period. you lied, you got caught, and you cannot even back out of it like a man. instead, you throw up nuclear smoke screens and oil shale slicks.

Oh, and as an addendum, coal to oil has NOT been posted about numerous times. it's appeared in PPOT exactly ONCE before this thread. One single post, by you, where you randomly list it off, alongside nuclear and alternative energy. It has not been extensively discussed here. I actually think that you have no CLUE what "coal to oil" actually IS! I think that you assume that any time the words "coal" and "oil" are used in the same general post, that it qualifies as coal to oil.


Lies upon lies to hide lies.

You can play those word games by yourself. You don't need help.

The US government disagrees with you.
There are lots of estimates that you say don't exist.
While no person can say exactly how many exactly gallons, pints, and ounces of oil are there, they are pretty accurate. They are listed as either proved and producing, proved and non-producing or unproved.
The ones you say don't exist are proved non-producing reserves.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_nprod_a_epc0_r9907_mmbbl_a.htm

I'm well versed in this field, it looks like you are not. Pick your battles carefully.

DOE - that's the Bushie controlled DOE - thinks there is very little oil under the US cont. shelf. Do a search - their report will pop up (amid the flotsam and jetsam of uniformed bloggers).

hey - who s Steven Goddard? Maybe these guys know:
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/category/climate-cranks/steven-goddard/


There is LOTS of oil shale. It is possible to make oil out of it. It is very expensive and requires huge amounts of water (which the process pollutes). Our oil hslae is in the Rockies where water is very scarce & precious.

Remember, no matter what kind of petroleum you burn, it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Esxactly what we do NOT want.

Unless you are a holocaust denier.

Ooops, --- well, same thing really.

By Jim Ostroff
Provided by

Think the U.S. is running out of oil? Think again.

What is running low, given soaring demand for energy worldwide, is oil in fields that have already been tapped and are in production -- in other words, the relatively easy-to-get stuff, which oil companies have proven exists and can get at with current technology. Those reserves are clearly being drained. The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels now, down from nearly 29 billion barrels a decade ago and about half the 1970 peak of 39 billion barrels. But...

Untapped Oil Reserves Could Fuel U.S. For 300 Years
The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8481225

Says who? "Edited - language removed, Z-man" manbearpig. co2 climate change is bull"Edited - language removed, Z-man". Show me your proof.

So does breathing.

And no matter what you do, plants and oceans will suck up CO2 to make life.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/pdf/tbl10.pdf
The US outer continental shelf (excluding Alaska) contains 59.09 billion barrels of oil.
Of that, 18.17 billion barrels are unavailable for leasing and development (restricted).
California has 9.97 BILLION barrels of restricted oil reserves.
The eastern gulf shelf has an additional 3.98 BILLION barrels of restricted reserve.

59.09 BILLION barrels is not "very little oil".
It is allot of oil.

We are currently producing a total of about 160 million barrels a month in the US, including Alaska.
The oil on our outer continental shelf is equivalent to almost 31 YEARS of production at our current production level.
Just the restricted oil reserves on our outer continental shelf is equal to 9.4 YEARS of production at our current level of productiion. That's allot of oil.

Alaska has a total of about 3.9 billion barrels of crude reserves. The total oil reserves on our outer continental shelf is over 15 times as much oil as we have in Alaska. Were talking a large amount.

Iraq has allot of oil. 112 billion barrels of proved reserves, the 2nd largest proven reserves in the world. The oil on our outer continental shelf is over half as big as all the oil in Iraq. There's quite a bit there.

Now we can't get it all at once, and some of it will be more expensive to get to than the rest, but it's all classified as technically available so it can be reached and pumped.

See, this kind of stuff is my hobby. I've been studying it for decades.

That's a remarkable analogy.

Sorry to see that reason, on both sides, has left this discussion.

Another thread down the drain. :(