Global Warming, just a hoax?

[Neo]

Are the strategies for global warming harmful to all life on the earth?

To financial life it can be quite a burden which turns the tide a bit.

As EB pointed out, many of the changes would be worth doing anyway, e.g. weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, utilising renewable energy sources such as solar energy etc. In fact many companies are already finding ways to profit from becoming greener.

[eagle]

Are the strategies for global warming harmful to all life on the earth?

To financial life it can be quite a burden which turns the tide a bit.

As EB pointed out, many of the changes would be worth doing anyway, e.g. weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, utilising renewable energy sources such as solar energy etc. In fact many companies are already finding ways to profit from becoming greener.

Yes in the long run we will all fare better but the loss of profits keeps Global warming in the hot seat :shock:

[English_Bob]

There is a in issue about how best to spend money...

Do we spend billions on future climate change issues which may never occur, or do we use that money to address food shortages caused by over-population which are inevitable?

Should we cut carbon emissions to reduce CO2 in the hope that it will reduce the temperature of the whole globe, or do we make preparations for housing and health issues?

Does cutting economic growth hurt the planet? It can do... poor nations will become poorer, resources become scarcer and wars will be fought.

There is always a cost. That cost/benefit ratio is important... The end-of-humanity hype is not helpful. Those who say, "If we do nothing, mankind will die out" are as ridiculous as the 'flat-earth' people.

If the whole world's climate changes, people will move and adapt. Land that was once uninhabitable, will become habitable. Some species will die out and some will thrive. Some will cease to exist in one area and will appear in another.

"It's life, Jim... but not as we know it." (movie quote game revived)

[Hobbes]

i've never seen anyone so unaware that they don't know what the f*ck they're talking about. no wait, there's vbroker.

Congrats hitting 20,000 and counting. Methinks all that hot air contributed to at least 1/2 degree in the now formally and officially discredited anthropogenic global warming farce. When should we expect the 30,000 milestone? Or should I say "kilometerstone" since we're dealing with mainly Europeans in this here comic environment?

I may have missed something but where has AGW been 'formally and officially discredited'?? Please, enlighten me. :roll:

If you refer to some hacked emails being quoted selectively and often out of context, they do not invalidate the body of evidence accumulated over the last 2 decades by thousands of scientists all over the world. Sorry to burst your bubble (well, actually I'm not) but the science of human induced AGW still stands until someone comes up with some peer-reviewed studies to the contrary on which to form a different consensus. Some think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation or the National Center for Policy Analysis, to name a few, would pay good money too for any scientist who could achieve that if money is what would motivate scientists. :roll:

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

[CiaranM]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[GAV]

The problem with going "Green", is there is no money in it, compared to say oil or coal. You buy a solar panel, put it up and dont spend any more money for the life of the cell.

Oil, Coal and Nuclear etc are consumerables that you constantly have to replace and the machinery using them need constant repair. No matter whet we do with them, they will never be Clean and or Green.

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

On the news tonight we were told that Australia has had its Hottest (seasonal) 6 months in recorded history. It would appear that the changes are starting and are more noticable here.

If you want to know your future, Watch what happens to the climate in Australia.

[Hobbes]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Sorry Ciaran but I did say 'science'. :wink:

Anyway, the BBC has done it too in a form that is a bit easier to digest here and here.

[CiaranM]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Sorry Ciaran but I did say 'science'. :wink:

Anyway, the BBC has done it too in a form that is a bit easier to digest here and here.

i was doing great until i got this far .....

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

and YES .... that was the 1st of the 6 steps !!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Hobbes]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Sorry Ciaran but I did say 'science'. :wink:

Anyway, the BBC has done it too in a form that is a bit easier to digest here and here.

i was doing great until i got this far .....

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

and YES .... that was the 1st of the 6 steps !!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

Yeah, further down the equations get worse. :wink:

Believe it or not but with these 6 steps they tried to make this complex problem easier to grasp and understand...pah, scientist hey... :roll:

[Neo]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

[eagle]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

What it needs it less drag from those already monopolizing the energy needs of the world.

[Hobbes]

C?mon? Climatology and Meteorology are at least first cousins. Let?s not pretend that they are two completely different subjects? one is the study of short term local weather patterns and the other is the study of long term weather patterns? My point is still valid? if we can?t predict the weather accurately next week for one town? how can we predict the weather for the whole world 100 years from now?

And I?m glad you brought up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC from now). They publish reports yearly on climate change.

The first one in 1990 said it would be very difficult to detect a human influence on climate. However, in 1995, the IPCC published a report that said there was ?a discernable human influence?? The scientists who were the original authors of that report were most displeased? as they specifically wrote they COULDN?T detect a human influence. (you can still find the original text online somewhere and see where the IPCC ?sexed up? the report).

My first question is? if it?s a real and valid threat, why the need to change the document?

Global temperature rises?? OK good let?s look at those.

I?m looking at the graphs published by the Goddard Institute for Science and Technology (GISS). The first one I want to look at is for Punta Arenas 1888-2004 which shows the annual mean temperature dropping by 0.75 of a degree Celsius.

Why Punta Arenas? Simply because it?s the nearest city to Antarctica in the world.

Other places? Pasadena ? up four degrees. Berkeley ? up ½ degree. Death Valley ? no change. Nevada ? down one degree. Oklahoma ? down ½ degree. Truman Missouri ? down 2 degrees. Alice Springs, Australia ? no change. Kamensko, Siberia ? no change. Tokyo, Japan ? up 4 degrees.

If Global Warming is a GLOBAL problem, why is the world hotter in some parts and cooler in others? And unchanged in others?

Some scientists believe it?s to do with urbanization. As cities get larger they use more power and generate more heat. Many of these weather stations USED to be in rural areas, but as the cities grow bigger, they encroach onto these places and the surrounding temperature rises. This is called Urban Heat Island Effect. New York has grown to 8 million people? Albany 140 miles away has barely grown? but the average temperature has dropped.

Manchester UK is now eight degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shanghai temperature rose one degree Celsius in the last twenty years alone ? that?s more than the total global warming of the planet in the last hundred years.

(See R Bohm ? Urban bias in temperature time series. Also L Chen Characteristics of the heat island effect in Shanghai ? Advances in Atmospheric Sciences ? issue 20)

(Graphs provided by Historical Climatology Network data set ? a US government dataset Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Sea levels rising ? yep I?ve seen the graphs. I see one here that says the Northern Pacific has risen, but the Southern Pacific has fallen.

(See Lomburg, pp 289-90 on inadequacy of IPCC sea level models)

Changes in sea level have been happening for millennia. Haven?t you seen shells and fossils in the desert or on mountains? Where did they come from? We are in a period called an ?inter glacial? which means between two ice ages. And the Earth has an inter-glacial period every 100,000 years. This particular period is cooler than the previous three.

By the way, during the seventies, almost ALL environmentalists were warning of an impending ice age. Then in 1988, a climatologist called James Hansen warned of Global Warming. He also said, ?The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.? In other words ? it?s too tricky to make predictions.

But he DID make a prediction (sometimes known as a guess) that temperature would rise by 0.35 degrees Celsius. The actual rise was 0.11? so he was wrong by 300% Should we make global policies based on predictions that can be so wrong?

IPCC also said it was impossible to predict future climate change ? (IPCC Climate Change 2001 and IPCC Climate Change 1995)

One of the big issues is? is it REALLY CO2 that?s causing the rise? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased? from 316 parts per million to 376 parts per million ? mmm sixty parts per million.

Did you know the total weight of termites in the world exceeds the total weight of humans by a thousand times?? and they all produce methane ? a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

I?m getting bored now (and I?m sure you are too) so I?ll just give you the references for the first post?

Antarctic Ice thickening? J Liu, J Curry, DG Martinson ? 2004 Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea variability? Antarctic has increased since 1979

N Vyas, M Dash S Bhandari ? 2003 Secular Trends in sea ice based on OCEANSAT-1 International journal of Remote Sensing? Trend towards more sea-ice may be increasing.

CL Parkinson 2002 ? Trends in the lengthof the Southern Ocean sea-ice season. 1979-99? The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season ? 21 days longer than it did in 1979.

JB Anderson, JT Andrews ? 1999 Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in Weddell Sea Antactica?. Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial.

DWJ Thompson and S Solomon 2002 Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change ?. Ice shelves have retreated, but sea ice has increased.

I?m sure some people will dismiss all this without giving counter arguments. But the point is? whatever some people say, someone else has evidence to the contrary, and people can choose to believe what they want. There?s no need to get shirty and think someone is a dumb loser because they have a different opinion to you. I welcome the debates we have online and hope we can treat it as a discussion, not an argument!

Posted in a diifferent forum - my bad...

As promised (if a day late) I'm back on the case. :wink:

The IPCC doesn't publish reports yearly. Their last Assessment Report dates from 2007 and was already 'outdated', as far as research was concerned, by the time it was published. The one before that was from 2001. Although it is a scientific body set up by the UN, governments too influence the wording of the reports. That is why the Assessment Reports are often so ambiguous in their wording particular where human impact on AGW is concerned even though the scientific data don't leave any doubt there. Otherwise the then US administration would have walked out (in my view not as bad as having some of the fudged compromises in the text).

Why is it so difficult to understand that a global warming of say 0.4 degrees Celsius does not mean every spot on the globe has increased by this figure but it is an average figure. The polar regions have increased significantly more other regions and some may have not increased at all. And yes, some may even get colder. That is not a contradiction (or conspiracy). When the rapid melting of the ice in the Arctic and on Greenland changes the salinity of the North Atlantic which drives the warm Gulf Stream then that current will slow down and may even stop (as it has in the past). Nobody knows at what point that may happen yet but if it does things in Middle Europe are going to get a lot cooler as a direct result of the effects of AGW.

Your Urban Heat Islands have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Again an often used argument disproved by plenty of research like here, here and here with a good illustration of why UHI is a just a red herring here.

Nobody said anything about Methane, Ozone or Nitrous Oxides not being Greenhouse gases. Sure they are even more potent than CO2 but they are not being released on the scale as CO2 is. It is the shear quantity of CO2 being released into the atmosphere that focuses on it as the main driver for AGW. There are large amounts of Methane stored in bodies of water and Permafrost soils. Should warming get to the point they are released than that will have a self-amplification effect on AGW.

Ok, that's my good deed done for the day...

:twisted:

[zeusbheld]

i've never seen anyone so unaware that they don't know what the f*ck they're talking about. no wait, there's vbroker.

Congrats hitting 20,000 and counting. Methinks all that hot air contributed to at least 1/2 degree in the now formally and officially discredited anthropogenic global warming farce. When should we expect the 30,000 milestone? Or should I say "kilometerstone" since we're dealing with mainly Europeans in this here comic environment?

methane gas from concentrated bullshit contributes far more to air pollution of every kind, therefore you are far more of a danger to the environment than i.

when should we expect even the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty from you, Mr. Integrity? if past practice or this most recent post are anything to go by, that one's easy to predict. never.

[zeusbheld]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

and maybe you can explain exactly why it should, or even could be, nice and simple?

[zeusbheld]

one of your more interesting posts on the subject imo. if you stick to the practical stuff and stop trying to refute the science with ill-informed nonsense, you'd be a lot more persuasive.

There is a in issue about how best to spend money...

Do we spend billions on future climate change issues which may never occur, or do we use that money to address food shortages caused by over-population which are inevitable?

which introduces the question of whether there isn't a way to do both, or whether there aren't changes that would be beneficial regardless of whether climate change is even a threat.

there is a disturbing trend among those who accept AGW as a done deal to assume that they know what needs to be done to cope with it. i'd expect that's the harder problem of the two both scientifically and politically, but what most likely will happen is that everyone will get whipped up into a froth, pass some treaty that *claims* to cut emissions by x percent, and feel like they've saved the Earth... regardless of whether this plan of theirs actually does anything.

Should we cut carbon emissions to reduce CO2 in the hope that it will reduce the temperature of the whole globe, or do we make preparations for housing and health issues?

assuming that the scientific work in progress turns out to support the notion that CO2 is a major problem (which we still do not know to any high degree of certainty)... can we really be confident that policies designed to address the problem will actually be effective? carbon trading, for example, looks like a layer of bureaucracy with a high feel-good factor for politicians but a very low chance of actually doing anything about the problem they claim to be addressing.

Does cutting economic growth hurt the planet? It can do... poor nations will become poorer, resources become scarcer and wars will be fought.

There is always a cost. That cost/benefit ratio is important... The end-of-humanity hype is not helpful. Those who say, "If we do nothing, mankind will die out" are as ridiculous as the 'flat-earth' people.

i don't know that every possible approach to combating AGW would necessarily involve cutting economic growth, and i don't know if the benefits of combating it economically might not stimulate economic growth of some sort (after all, by most accounts World War 2 did, but as you say the cost/benefit ratio is important).

there are even plausible scenarios wherein doing nothing would cut economic growth even i the AGW scientists got it wrong.

that said i don't agree that the doomsday cult are as ridiculous as flat earthers, but they are ridiculous. they're nearly as ridiculous as vbroker claiming Ann Coulter officially refuted the AGW theory because of some bad data, and that's pretty ******* clownshoes.

the doomsday cult are just as guilty as Miss Coulter of not actually bothering to read, let alone understand, what the scientists who actually work on this stuff expect to happen.

it's also worth noting that while we may be extinct before the end of the 21st century, we have much more efficient means of killing ourselves off at our disposal than slowly warming the planet...

If the whole world's climate changes, people will move and adapt. Land that was once uninhabitable, will become habitable. Some species will die out and some will thrive. Some will cease to exist in one area and will appear in another.

"It's life, Jim... but not as we know it." (movie quote game revived)

and people may or may not be successful and survive, regardless of what we do or dont' do about AGW.

[zeusbheld]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

What it needs it less drag from those already monopolizing the energy needs of the world.

actually from what i've read, big oil companies like Exxon are leading the way in alternative energy research. which makes sense--let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW turns out to be wrong. peak oil is still inevitable, so it's in their long-term best interest.

[LakeGeneve]

I lived through the Cold War... I lived through AIDS... I lived through Y2K... I lived through WMDs, high cholestrol, race riots, IRA attacks, pig flu, bird flu, ebola virus, Anthrax, BSE, passive smoking, red meat, salmonella, CJD, satanic abuses and Osama Bin Laden hasn't got me yet.

I always had the impression that you took good care of yourself but now I find out you have had pig flu, bird flu, ebola, anthrax, BSE, salmonella poisoning, CJD and all with a high cholestrol. Moreover, you have been in race riots, IRA attacks and subjected to a WMD attack yet you were not maimed or killed! :roll:

Your genes must be amazing to have survived all of that! You would make a great sperm donor to any women who wants a child who will survive any illness. :wink:

[CiaranM]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

and maybe you can explain exactly why it should, or even could be, nice and simple?

for 1 very very good reason .... if u want to convince ppl of the effects of GW u need to explain it to them in language they will understand !!!

[Stramash]

I lived through the Cold War... I lived through AIDS... I lived through Y2K... I lived through WMDs, high cholestrol, race riots, IRA attacks, pig flu, bird flu, ebola virus, Anthrax, BSE, passive smoking, red meat, salmonella, CJD, satanic abuses and Osama Bin Laden hasn't got me yet.

I always had the impression that you took good care of yourself but now I find out you have had pig flu, bird flu, ebola, anthrax, BSE, salmonella poisoning, CJD and all with a high cholestrol. Moreover, you have been in race riots, IRA attacks and subjected to a WMD attack yet you were not maimed or killed! :roll:

Your genes must be amazing to have survived all of that! You would make a great sperm donor to any women who wants a child who will survive any illness. :wink:

Yeah, like Dave needs a p.r. guy to convince him to donate his spunkbubbles...

:roll:

[zeusbheld]

Oh, and if you really were interested in the science of AGW here are 6 steps to understand the CO2 problem...just saying. :wink:

i'm just glad u sent us something nice and simple Jens .... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

and maybe you can explain exactly why it should, or even could be, nice and simple?

for 1 very very good reason .... if u want to convince ppl of the effects of GW u need to explain it to them in language they will understand !!!

i'm not convinced that dumbed down "explanations" aren't doing far more damage than 'global warming' ever will. all i see it leading to so far is feel-good pseudo solutions to ill-understood problems, and t-shirts. lots of t-shirts.

[eagle]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

What it needs it less drag from those already monopolizing the energy needs of the world.

actually from what i've read, big oil companies like Exxon are leading the way in alternative energy research. which makes sense--let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW turns out to be wrong. peak oil is still inevitable, so it's in their long-term best interest.

I've heard them say so recently and with alternatives becoming popular with global warming I'm sure big oil sees where the future of energy is going. Thats a great thing but wish they had been on board 30 years ago.

[zeusbheld]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

What it needs it less drag from those already monopolizing the energy needs of the world.

actually from what i've read, big oil companies like Exxon are leading the way in alternative energy research. which makes sense--let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW turns out to be wrong. peak oil is still inevitable, so it's in their long-term best interest.

I've heard them say so recently and with alternatives becoming popular with global warming I'm sure big oil sees where the future of energy is going. Thats a great thing but wish they had been on board 30 years ago.

i might as well lob my 'conspiracy theory' out there (everyone else does, a case could be made it's the only thing an interwebs "debate" is good for)....

maybe the reason the oil co's are so interested in alternative energy has more to do with what their geologists are telling them about peak oil?

[eagle]

Turely Green Energy like Solar, Wind and Geo Thermal, has a start up cost and are almost maint free for the life of the equipment. Until "Capitalism" can come to terms with this, we will keep poluting the planet.

The start up cost is where the big money is. Imagine how much money a next gen solar energy company could make. Capitalism is gonna drive deployment of green tech. It's already starting to happen. What it needs is more customers.. i.e. governments willing to save money on power generation, and willing to support infrastructure for electric and/or hydrogen vehicles, among other things. Thereby providing more opportunities to get rich from going green.

What it needs it less drag from those already monopolizing the energy needs of the world.

actually from what i've read, big oil companies like Exxon are leading the way in alternative energy research. which makes sense--let's assume for the sake of argument that AGW turns out to be wrong. peak oil is still inevitable, so it's in their long-term best interest.

I've heard them say so recently and with alternatives becoming popular with global warming I'm sure big oil sees where the future of energy is going. Thats a great thing but wish they had been on board 30 years ago.

i might as well lob my 'conspiracy theory' out there (everyone else does, a case could be made it's the only thing an interwebs "debate" is good for)....

maybe the reason the oil co's are so interested in alternative energy has more to do with what their geologists are telling them about peak oil?

no doubt they have concerns. I'm sure there not thinking of the well being of mankind...

[DJTX]

maybe the reason the oil co's are so interested in alternative energy has more to do with what their geologists are telling them about peak oil?

I'm not too sure they are that interested. When you consider that Exxon just paid somewhere around $41 billion US for XTO Energy you have to question how "sincere" they really are. Exxon will become the largest natural gas producer in the US, and natural gas is the fastest growing area in energy.

However, I understand that a Senator or Congressman from Mass. is opening a hearing on how companies like XTO extract gas and oil from shale. If congress ends up saying it's illegal, this may all be mute anyway.

[eagle]

maybe the reason the oil co's are so interested in alternative energy has more to do with what their geologists are telling them about peak oil?

I'm not too sure they are that interested. When you consider that Exxon just paid somewhere around $41 billion US for XTO Energy you have to question how "sincere" they really are. Exxon will become the largest natural gas producer in the US, and natural gas is the fastest growing area in energy.

However, I understand that a Senator or Congressman from Mass. is opening a hearing on how companies like XTO extract gas and oil from shale. If congress ends up saying it's illegal, this may all be mute anyway.

The whole shale oil - gas thing is insane. A company is wanting to extract gas in such a way in the area where I live. It uses insane amounts of water and the companies are reckless for the money they put out for land rights.