http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_r...ssil_fuels

When Salon starts printing articles like this, you gotta believe that the fear-mongers are in definite retreat.

Oh well, there's far better science-fiction available than AGW and peak oil.

(06-03-2011 11:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  When Salon starts printing articles like this, you gotta believe that the fear-mongers are in definite retreat.

No kidding. It's clear their typical readers aren't used to that kind of thinking. Did you take a look at the comments? Robert's been busy...

What I found interesting is the author's other works.

Here's a book of his.

Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America

So he's not a partisan idealogue. My question. Is he correct? I have some serious questions about his "Peak Oil" angle.

(06-03-2011 01:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What I found interesting is the author's other works.

Here's a book of his.

Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America

So he's not a partisan idealogue. My question. Is he correct? I have some serious questions about his "Peak Oil" angle.

In other words, "He's a liberal, so I'll believe him".

Such closed-mindedness coming from a lib. Can't say I'm surprised.

Close mindedness? He said he had serious questions about what the guy wrote. Did you even read Mach's comments?

(06-03-2011 02:04 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Close mindedness? He said he had serious questions about what the guy wrote. Did you even read Mach's comments?

Sure, right after he qualified it with the guy's lib cred as to say, "well, he is a lib so I'll listen now".

(06-03-2011 01:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 11:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  When Salon starts printing articles like this, you gotta believe that the fear-mongers are in definite retreat.

No kidding. It's clear their typical readers aren't used to that kind of thinking. Did you take a look at the comments? Robert's been busy...

As opposed to the rightwing, that doesn't think? Sorry I somehow missed this thread. I will read the article and may get back to you with a response.

So what he is saying is IF we use highly polluting "fracking", then we might have enough energy to keep us going for years. And if these other techniqes work(methane/ice on the sea floor) we COULD have a lot more energy. Lots of coulds and pollution. I am not saying that these can't be viable options in a transition(though, I think the "fracking" should be dropped unless it can be done cleanly and safely-which I doubt) to other sources. I don't think battery powered cars are the answer because it to is from a non-renewable source. I think hydrogen and solar(or a combo of both) are the way to go in the future.

He never said that he was only listening because the guy is a liberal.

He was informing people where the guy comes from, and letting people know his opinion is probably not biased, meaning it's worth listening to what the guy has to say. Information I think most of us find important any time we're reading something about a political issue.

Would you really care to read an article that says that climate change is real, if you knew the author was a far left liberal who had written 20 books about how Republicans are the devil? No.. clearly not, you'd laugh it off as some guy who is completely biased and not worth listening to. But you would be interested if it was some well known, far right scientist who came to a conclusion that ran opposite of what his political leanings would suggest. That's far more interesting, and someone who will (or should) get your attention.