Korean Job Discussion Forums

[EFLtrainer]

And, finally, you are wrong about whether we are having a discussion, or a debate.

[thepeel]

EFL, you come across as if you have fully completely dissociated yourself with humanity and live in an internet world of good/evil. I've never come across such a hostile person before.

You are only harming your cause. Calm down.

[mindmetoo]

[EFLtrainer]

1. At elast we agree about goopher. Bitchslapped? Goopher has never won an argument against me. He never will. He is far too immature in his understanding of the world around him. He is still in the stage of discovering ideas. He has not moved on to the level of applying logic and information in real time and in real life contexts. He's an ivory tower wannabe.

2. Maybe you should do some research into the nature of violence. The two of you regularly assault others on this board, and have on this thread. Hypocritical.

Notice I never mention the issue? Also notice your constant attempts to derail the discussion into one about my style/personality. Notice I never do that. It's a tactic reserved for people whose arguments cannot stand the test of analysis. Your argument stands or doesn't. It matters not whether I call you an idiot or you say I don't know how to debate. They both end up beign the same thing. Attempt to stand on your supposed higher ground. You have none. Your logic is flawed. Your analysis is flawed. Your understanding of the issues is flawed. You cannot say the same of my argument. The worst you can say is I called you an idiot. Well, only an idiot would think being uninformed on the issues is OK, but calling someone an idiot for not being informed on the issues is not.

Let us review:

A. You said PO and GW are not related. Wrong.

B. You kept stating PO is twenty years out. Wrong. (Running out of oil, for all intents and puproses, is about 50 years out. And those points are dependent upon whether we are truly in Peak Oil or not. However, those raising the alarm about it state it is either already in progress or soon will be.)

C. You said sea level rise is an issue in 100 years. Wrong. It is happning now and affecting lives now.

D. You then tried to say sea level rise would not impact major urban centers for 100 years. Wrong. The IPCC report does not state that. It states that by the end of the century sea level rise is expected to reach a certain level given a particular scenario. It did not, however, attach any probabilities to those estimates.

D1. First, the rise is a process, not a suddenly occurring event. Even with the modest predictions, the ten or so centimeters AVERAGE rise wll cause serious problems. You are NOT considering that sea level rise is not uniform. And ten centimeters is the AVERAGE. Now, take those ten centimeters over wide areas of ocean and pile them all up into tides, storm surges, etc. Get it? The CUMULATIVE effects are much, much greater than 10 centimeters in any given location at given times. Thus, major distrbances will be occurring well before the end of the century.

D2. You tried to say sea level rise would impact PO. Wrong. There won't be much direct affect from SLR -> PO, but there likely will be a direct effect of PO -> SLR (Again, if it is a real phenomenon. NOTE: you seem to be assuming I believe PO is a fact. I do not. My argument has been that YOUR logic on this issue was poorly constructed.) due to the increased burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal.

D3. You further stated that PO is not an issue because economics will drive the switch to fossil fuels. Perhaps. However, given the current geopolitical environment, where do you see the big push coming from? The Bush Cadre, which is now in Iraq to secure oil for the west? If the money spent on this war had been spent on alternative fuels, we'd be well on our way to getting off oil. But we aren't. Brazil is, yes. But are the US, India, China? No. Not even close.

D4. Your point above also rpeatedly discuses the development of resources. Tell me, who is going to buy them? When people are paying 400 month for their utilities, as I did in California because of Enron, or more, where does the money come from for the PEOPLE to make the switch?

Etc., etc.

Again, your arguments are simplistic and some are just plain wrong. You can say me calling you an idiot is important. It is not. You are spreading false/defective information. In this day and age, THAT is a moral wrong.

Get over yourselves. You are too immature and self-absorbed to see that being wrong and being unwilling to admit it is far more an issue than using a pejorative to make a point.

[EFLtrainer]

might also want to factor this in:

Worker Shortage

Info:

Saudi Shortage?


The Methane Economy (New tech? 2004)

[mindmetoo]

3-1 says I've won this debate. You're beating a dead horse now.

[EFLtrainer]

You're a fool. A little more education for you.

[Nowhere Man]

Mindmetoo, 4-1.

Someone's being gopheric.

[Kimchi Cowboy]

Well, that's just great. We all know that the oil is going to run out someday. It's undeniable. But instead of trying to wean ourselves off of it and putting our energies and monetary resources into finding alternatives, we're spending untold millions of dollars trying to squeeze out every last drop of a fuel, the uses of which have been shown to be largely responsible for the degradation of our planet's climate and environment.

It's truly a wonderful world...

[TheUrbanMyth]

[thepeel]

KC, it isn't like that.

As prices increase, the viability of oil as a source of energy for autos, for example, will decrease. The oil will never run out, because by the time it would have, we will have moved on to something else.

The Economist last week had a great Technology Quarterly. Give it a read. Lots of talk about new energy technologies, especially solar.

[EFLtrainer]

[EFLtrainer]

Lying/being stupid = style.

From the same link as above: The Peak Oil Crisis: The Portland Report

Actual Portland report.

[EFLtrainer]

Global Oil Resources, Chairman of Exxon: 4 trillion barrels

Global oil use, U.S. Dept. of Energy: 82.48 million

Time to total depletion with no rise in demand: 132 years.

The above numbers assume ALL oil can be extracted. (It can't.)

Now, tell me we are not in a period of peak oil. Oil trades on futures. If these numbers are known, what prevents oil prices from going through the roof once current oil companies get control - and they will, or will die trying - of the alternative sources of oil?

Secondly, if we have badly affected the Earth's ecology burning up only 1 trillion barrels of oil so far (Exxon), what the hell will the effects of burning 3 trillion more be?

[hiua25]