My family has stated that by 2030 all our resources will be gone?

Question

What are some ways we can redeem ourselves for the sins of our fathers? How do we reverse Global Warming or help reduce it?

Answer 1

Your family is clearly wrong.

Although it is true that global climate change will be an increasingly important problem over the next century, and it is also true that human use of fossil fuels contributes in a mjaor way to this change, it is not true that all our resources will be gone by 2030. That statement is just ignorant.

Neither coal, natural gas, nor probably petroleum will be "gone" by 2030 although it is possible that scarcity of petroleum will have driven prices up quite steeply. But we still have some very vital resources - soil, sun, wind, biomass, and many minerals that are not in short supply.



There are many resources which will not be "gone" by 2030.

Answer 2

It is very unlikely that all of earth's resources could be exhausted by the year 2030. It is possible though that all the easily available materials will be in short supply. This will force the world to recycle more and more stuff such as iron, steel, glass, plastic, and just about everything (of a durable nature). If we were to start aggressive recycling now it would push the 2030 shortage into the future by at least a couple of generations.

Answer 3

We will not be out of anything by 2030. Known oil reserves are stand at a little north of 1 trillion barrels of proven, easy to estract reserves. Multiples of that number exist as oil sands, oil shales, oil tars, etc. Note that as technology continues to advance, the prospects for finding new oil sources will increase. Thus we have more than enough oil to let everyone be at ease for a couple of hundred years. Coal is plentiful, cheap, and easy to use. Natrual gas is also plentiful, cheap, and easy. If countries switch to other energy sources, the lifetime of oil reserves stretches even farter out into the future.

Metals can all be recycled, so no worries there. Trees can be planted and grown, as they are for the paper indistry. Crop yeilds keep increasing. Potable water can be made (not cheaply) from salt water and contaminated fresh water.

As for Dr. Ball, he isn't the only dissenter:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

There are also a myriad of scientists that publish paper after paper refuting the manmade casues of global warming.

Answer 4

There are two types of resources, renewable and non-renewable. Non-renewable resources (Gold, Diamonds, coal, petroleum, natural gas) may indeed be exhausted, though each probably at a different time, plus they are all hidden underground and technology continues to locate new stores. Renewable resources, unless we contaminate them should be around. These include our water and soil resources, timber industries, agriculture. We need to find ways to depend on the renewable resources, yet at the same time not use them so intensively that their quality diminishes.

Answer 5

I am posting here my reaction to Timothy Ball letter posted above:

The whole letter has not a single supporting fact to the idea it presents, namely that global warming is not due to human behavior. It is a long list of denial and anecdotes about political persecution.
It merely hints, without clearly stating it, that CO2 might not have an insulating effect on earth.

Bottom line: apart from name-dropping PhD's and beating his own chest for taking on the lone role of a dissenter, the author totally fails to present any verifiable fact which would invalidate global warming.

________________
Edit:

A quick research about Tim Ball on the Internet shows he is a crackpot who lied about his credentials and who engage in litigation for defamation with people who pointed to his lies. Now where can he get the funds to litigate... let me venture a guess: Alberta oil companies.

Next, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) recently concluded that global warming is real and that there is a 90% probability that it is due to mankind. This IS the consensus. If there are a "myriad" of scientists (like ahem... Michael Crichton) who believe otherwise, let them organize themselves and present FACTs instead of crackpot accusation and whining about a cabale, like this Tim Ball.

Even Bush is now admitting global warming is real and we have to do something.

Answer 6

There are many ways to slow global warming, but, I'm not sure we can reverse it completely. You might want to check some sites, here on the net, to find the info you want.. That way, you'll be more aware of steps to take, because you've investigated and thereby invested time and energy to help yourself, and the rest of us.
Doing this kind of thing WILLredeem us from the 'sins of our fathers' who, in the beginning, didn't know about this stuff...

Answer 7

Our resources will not be gone in 23 years, though they will be drastically decreased, and eventually, if we keep wasting all the fssil fuels and voting for gas manufactuers for president, we will run out. We can slow it down by not using fossil fuels.

Answer 8

Your family is wrong on giving you false information. Resources are indeed diminishing, but it will not happened in 20 years from now. Is your family also planning on riding a spaceship before it all ends to heaven?

You need to start questioning your family beliefs and start making your own decisions.

Answer 9

all of our resources will not be gone.
just means we'll have to count on microbes much more, to produce energy rather than drilling up fossil fuels, which will probably be nearly depleted.

by reducing emissions and making American auto manufacturers able to compete with chinese ones.

Answer 10

your family is wrong.

Read this -

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


------------------------------...

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [e-mail]