AGW deniers - Saving up coal and oil for the impending Ice Age?

Question

I'm asking if it makes sense to exhaust the cheapest energy-dense, combustible fuels we have if we are going to need more of them later to keep us from freezing our butts off.

Since we won't have millions of years to make more, it would make some sense to conserve now, in which case believers and deniers might find themselves on the same side after all, AGW or not.

Answer 1

Typical leftist thinking (or lack there of).  Thinking up ridiculous reasons not to use available resources.

Answer 2

Us "deniers" don't claim to predict future weather like the "believers".

Answer 3

Wait you a denier or is this @ deniers? confusing man......give us an explanation of your question tooo!

Answer 4

many years ago a man (sorry can't remember his name) found that something (which nobody knows except maybe the Gov's) very simple can generate free energy, but free natural energy doesn't doesn't do the economy any good. The man who discovered this destroyed his notes, i should imagine that by now a scientist must have found it, but as long as our countries are run by money hungry morons, we'll never know what it is or how to harness it. This also shows how our leaders don't believe "global warming" is serious enough to do anything serious about it.

Answer 5

Are you suggesting that average citizens should save these things? Or that our government should save these things? I know the US government already does that for oil. I can't remember the exact amount, but I thought it was 1 out of every 3 barrels of oil that we bring into the country gets put into the strategic oil reserve.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/re...

I'm not sure if the US government considered doing the same thing with coal.

As for the possibility of an impending Ice Age. I think it would all depend on the severity of that Ice Age. We humans have survived minor ones in the past, but if you're talking about the possible start of a glaciation period all Northern governments would have to come up with a strategic plan of action. First of all, we'd have to know for certain that this was indeed happening. I have a feeling we wouldn't really know it was occuring for the first 20 - 40 years, since I bet at first it would come on gradually. Hopefully when we realize Winters were getting worse, we'd have the ability to migrate South. Would the US be so cruel that it'd keep Canadians from migrating into the US? I surely hope not.

Edit: I also believe most of the people in the World, whether they believe we are the cause of the average global temperature increase or not, believe we should conserve energy. They also believe in finding viable alternative energy sources.

Answer 6

nah. no need the impending ice age is just another layer of control initiated by the former communist worshipers of the  cold war era. They finally figured out a way to get the average ignorant US citizen on board. Emotional diatribe with something that can not  be proved yet ignorant people are easy swayed by their emotions. The burden of proof of the possiblity of AGW is on the accusers, as of yet there has not been a definitive scientific disscuion with out an agenda that represents the facts of the possibility of AGW, therefore it is not a fact that an impending ice age is coming. THE first one came after a metor hit the earth (in theroy not proven) so unless you know a meteor is coming then no one can be certain of the furute with out a crystal ball.

Answer 7

heee, hee, hee... I love this, especially Ninja's response... he doesn't know whether to attack or defend because he doesn't understand your agenda... so typical of the deniers that he won't / can't simply answer the question or evaluate the problem or generally think for himself.

No, he simply wants to know which side you are on (bugger the facts!) to know which knee to jerk....

As for the question - it's a good one; I wouldn't, myself as the smoke makes all that beautiful snow go black...

Answer 8

First because I don't think AGW theory is correct does not necessitate that I think we are heading into an Ice Age. Once I see the scientific experiments proving AGW, I will change my opinion (and no anecdotal evidence like melting ice is not a scientific experiment).

So far we haven't seen the temperature change one full degree "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005." (link 1)

The worst predictions show one to seven degrees "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century" (link 1)

These temperature changes should not scare people into hording fuel. Also we will need fuel either way. If it is cold to heat, if it is hot to cool.

Answer 9

We don't have thousands of years worth of oil and coal, see Hubberts Peak Fuel report at:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/...

The only way out of this environmental box we have gotten ourselves into is with nuclear power, see:  

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOO...  

So which ever the majority the public is, pro or con on global warming, logic is going to have to set in soon, by September 30, 2008 (congress must decide drilling debate).  Or else we will start going down hill rapidly as a major industrial country.

Answer 10

My great (times 100) grand children can put on a coat if they haven't got fusion reactors by then.

Answer 11

It makes sense to use the energy that is available to us now - especially coal, since it is sourced domestically.