In Europe we have enough gas to be self-sufficient for one, maybe two decades, but for several reasons the politicians don't want to use that fields. Here, because small earthquakes exists because of the gas drillings.

But Norway does have the fields and drill capacity to replace the stopped gas supply from Russia, if they really cut Ukraïne off. Why they won't want to drain more gas from their fields, I don't know. Maybe to save for later, just like the USA is doing.

I don't want to hijack the Ukraine / Obama thread but regarding that supposed "proof" you tube link. hahaha, it did nothing for me, he makes a lot of assumptions and claims them to be true, he has many half truths and several outright lies ...and you bought it all! EVERY scientist believes this? Really, EVERY one? and let's not forget, we should be questioning those with any sort of possible agenda...not according to this guy, we need to believe them simply because they are supposed "scientists" and they simply can't fake anything. The IPCC is to be trusted according to him yet they have shown how they fudged, misrepresented, obstructed, and so on The IPCC is no more if they say global warming is no concern. And global warming...maybe it is warming, maybe it's a cycle, it is a theory only that man has caused it to happen. Why are all the models and predictions failing left and right, why is the world supposedly warming yet wait, not so for the past decade or so. The Oceans are acting like big heat sinks I have heard ...really? Then why now and not before? Nope, there are waaaay too many very real questions still open to decide this is "settled". If we are ghaving warming, and have had for several decades then why is it so freaking COLD this year? Then why did we have past little ice ages and past warm spells before man starting polluting the air? The questions are many and they are hardly settled and that video was a bit of a one sided joke that answered absolutely nothing (unless you simply accept everything he said as factual I suppose?)

@batbeeje,
We are not saving it for later, we have a moron at the helm that doesn't want to open up public lands for gas and oil production.

Personally, I think that the most people in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea feel Russian, and should be allowed to join Russia, so whats the problem?
@Ruff: well we are not particularly happy to see a weak US but one power dominating everything can't be healthy too, eh?

@Tomahaha

Please watch the video and actually listen to what it says... You're arguing against a point he isn't making.

He's not arguing that Climate Change is real, he's arguing that it's upon the people who do not believe that it is happening to prove that it isn't. Quoting one analogy he makes:

You don't say "I know you smell smoke, and we're having difficulty breathing, and it's hot in here, and your theory is the roof is on fire, but until I have proof I'm not going to extinguish my cigar."

It doesn't matter if you believe that Climate Change is happening or not - it's not been proved that it's not happening so precautions should be taken. Especially considering there's a considerable amount of evidence for it, but that's a side-point and doesn't actually affect the argument.

Captain,
That is wrong, everybody knows this planet is in a constant state of climate change, has been happening since her birth and will continue to earth's end.

Since that premise is a fact and the climate change, do to "human interaction", fruitloops out there believe it is do to us, the burden in on them to prove it is because of us. They haven't done it, not even close and Tom is right it has been cooling for the 15 years. Though that in itself means nothing either because its is a blip on earth's history.

@ Captainmeme :

Your video does not make any point at all. That kind of false "argument" is called in French, my native language, "un renversement de la charge de la preuve". I don't know the exact name in English but the literal translation is "a reversal of the burden of proof".

It means that it belongs to those who believe in something to prove that that thing exists. And it is a mistake to ask to the people who do not believe that that thing exists to prove that it does not exist.

For example, if someone tells you that telepathy exists , it is HIS responsabilty to prove to you that it exists. What would you think if that person told you that it would be YOUR responsabilty to prove that thelepathy does not exist ?

I did watch it and I did spell out exactly what he said He said EVERY SINGLE scientist believed this to be the case, he even went so far as to say NOBODY disagreed, no "scientists" anyways. That is a patent lie and sets the tone for the rest of the video. he also asked for "deniers" to prove it is not happening. Yet we CAN prove this has happened many many times in the earths past, we can also show the warming trend has failed to live up to what was predicted and we have had no warming to speak of in a decade or so ...seems to me the onus is on those who trust this is "settled science" it's their theory that keeps coming up short.

and even your assumption that the world is ending because it may indeed be warming due to man, how about you prove how this will be so terrible? More arable land to farm, longer growing seasons, the earth's living organisms LIKE a warmer climate! You may have to move away from the coasts but to think coastlines need to stay as they are is ignoring the history of an ever evolving world. To assume man can stop this is also more than foolhardy.No, the proof needs to be on those who insist this is a problem, you see, I have history on my side, you have a theory on your side and theories are supposed to be proven. Tell you what, I have a theory the world is going to blow up in three days now disprove it! (you can't! same thing here)

Well Tom, there is that asteroid that is passing close to earth today :)

yes, now prove it will not veer out of course and hit the earth!
He wants us to prove the unprovable ..and then call it "science"
Listen global warming may be due to man, I am simply suggesting we really do not know for certain and we do not know if we can stop it (actually, we are pretty certain we CAN'T) so why the fuss? And please oh please, someone explain to me why we should blindly accept those with a clear agenda of profit to make these claims, because they claim "science" they are above question!?
Never, that simply is not SCIENCE to blindly accept what is being proposed. science insists we always question yet why is global warming a different animal?

Ruffhaus: You realize calling people idiots who disagree with you says more about you than my position, right? Likewise, calling me a blind socialist idealogue is unfounded, since neither I, nor any major political party, nor Obama are advocating for socialism. Rather, like FDR, I am saying that "When the interests of the many are concerned, the interests of the few must yield." And all of those items I listed about Obama are actual acts of government that he helped implement or pave the way for, not Democratic Party talking points. If you don't like any of them, fine, but it's not like they didn't happen.

@ Defiant: I don't see how you can blame Obama for the Benghazi attack. He did not launch it and it was the Republican party that continually denied any increase in embassy security funding. Further, every major head of national security is on record saying no alternative response was appropriate. This is just another case of the Republicans trying to smear the Democrats. And before Obama ever took office, it was established that the Bush tax cuts and unpaid for wars would have us in debt until the 2020's unless we took Draconian actions. Obama is actually adding less to the debt than any president since Eisenhower: www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ . And we can power the world and it's future energy needs on existing clean energy technologies, all that is lacking is the political will:

The World Can be Powered by Alternative Energy, Using Today's Technology, in 20-40 Years
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

Providing All Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part I:
Technologies, Energy Resources, Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure,
and Materials
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

Examining the Feasibility of Converting New York State’s All-Purpose
Energy Infrastructure to One Using Wind, Water, and Sunlight
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf

"G-man you also have to quit reading far far left periodicals, just try reading something from the heritage foundation, or something from Krauthammer(pretty smart guy)."

So, only extreme right-wing media is acceptable and everything else is far left? The Heritage Foundation has a strong political agenda y'know, and they are tied to the Koch Brothers and oil and gas industry.

And weather in one part of the country does not equate to world climate. Australia is having its hottest year ever while we are having a cold snap in the east, and so far, we are unfortunately on pace to have another record warm year globally. And the more we change the chemical constituency of the atmosphere and ocean, the more warmer air we will have, and the warmer air causes storms to be more intense. On our current warming pace, winters won't be going away anytime soon, but are likely to intensify, as will hurricanes, drought, extreme heat... And of course climate always changes, but we are driving up temperatures over decades vs. thousands and millions of years. Amd we are pushing the climate out of a state that was very conducive to life and into one that will be very difficult, if not impossible, for it in a very short amount of time.

Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere
http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/_pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf
(you'll have to type this one into your browser to access it, but it's an informative study)

Planetary Boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries

Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648

And you are in disagreement with 97% of the peer-reviewed science. The fact that you have to fall back on this huge scientific conspiracy theory, where scientists from all over the world and all of the world's leading scientific organizations are in some kind of conspiracy to generate funding when they could study and be funded for any number of subjects (as they always have been) doesn't hold water. Peer-reviewed science is the basis for credible science, and no matter how you slice, all but a few scientists on the fringe are in agreement that global warming is happening and that mankind is the primary driver. Just check with any of the leading scientific bodies around the world:

U.S. Academy of Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization (NOAA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
European Academy of Sciences
British Academy of Sciences
European Science Foundation
African Academy of Sciences
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Goelogical Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society
World Meteorological Organization
InterAcademy Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists
National Geographic
United Nations
Environmental Protection Agency...

Climate Change: NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Climate Change: U.S. Academy of Sciences and Royal Academy of Sciences
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/

The fact is, every decade is getting hotter than the last, and will continue to do so in step with the gasses that we are pouring into the atmosphere in large amounts that all intensify the greenhouse effect.

Tomahaha: The world has warmed last decade. Leading atmospheric scientist and former NASA Goddard Director James Hansen:

"In the last decade it has warmed only a tenth of a degree compared to two-tenths of a degree in the preceeding decade, but that's just natural variability. There is no reason to be surprised by that at all," he said. "If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability."

Prof Hansen said the focus by some on "details" was a smokescreen. "This is a diversionary tactic. Our understanding of global warming and human-made climate change has not been affected at all," he said. "It's because the deniers [of the science] want the public to be confused. They raise these minor issues and then we forget about what the main story is. The main story is carbon dioxide is going up and it is going to produce a climate which is going to have dramatic changes if we don't begin to reduce our emissions. "

The sad, sad outcome of this, is all life on Earth is going to pay dearly, in as soon as the back half of this century, for obstruction to a sustainable climate policy. We should be deploying existing clean energy technologies as fast as possible and implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax (with all dividends returned to households to shield the poor from the price increase) to drive the price of carbon up to make it undesirable and accountable for the damage it's doing. Increasing temperatures are only going to lead to low crop yields, water scarcity, ocean acidification so severe it will kill almost everything in the ocean, rising sea levels, loss of all ice, extreme weather, mass-migrations for natural resources, a horrible extinction rate for all species, and a planet that's largely inhospitable to life. None of this is good for an environment that's been stable and fostered us and life in general so long. And at the rate we're doing it at, it's not going to lead to any long-term benefits, but the greatest disaster of all-time in terms of living species. This is no Kool-Aid drinking, no politically-driven argument, and no theory, this is what's happening to our planet. Wake up and look all around you. The north pole is melting, ice sheets are retreating, land ice in Antarctica is melting (while still driving a growth in sea ice), weather is becoming more severe, the oceans are acidifying and killing corals and shellfish already, sea levels are rising, the extinction rate is severely climbing... It is by far in our best interests to keep things as stable and as conducive to life as they have been.

Very good G-Man! Anyone who thinks there is a global conspiracy to promote a scientific agenda clearly does not know anything about the psychology of scientists and how competitive they are. EVERY scientist I have worked with would love to get a publication disproving the work of another scientist.

Gman, it's your choice. I think that you're just a blind ideologue, and a cock slave to Obama, but if you prefer idiot, that's fine. Your lunatic leftist drivel is hilarious. You couldn't be more incorrect (or off topic), but keep on spewing out huge posts of nonsense to drown out the discussion. Nice thread hijack though. About the only topic you skirted there is abortion, but I'm sure that you have equally repulsive and ignorant opinions on that too. Yet with all the nitwittery that you posted, you cannot refute the main point of the threat that Putin has yet again made Obama his bitch.

Wow Ruffhaus, I thought you were able to discuss topics with people who have opposing views like a mature adult, without engaging in ridiculous name-calling and vulgarities left and right. And I don't see any facts or even well-formed opinions to back up your baseless assertions. Y'know, everyone who doesn't Agee with you is not an idiot or cock slave to someone you don't agree with. I won't bother replying to any non-Diplomacy item with you again.

Can we all stop acting like this is webdip? I mean, come on guys, I thought we were better than them...:D

Yeah...peace bros ♣

Ruffhaus isn't wrong here and he is not being nasty, a little funny in his terms but not nasty. And he is right.

G-man,
Bengazi-- we had assests in spain, extraction team, that's what they do, they could have been there in hours.
We had c-130 gunships in italy could have been there in mere hours.
We have fighter jets all over the med and neighboring countries. You do know how fast they are correct, or do you need to look that up as well.

this is what I am trying to impress on you. Use your common sense. We have the most advanced military in the world and we couldn't get one of these assests on site, maybe not in time to save the ambassador but mabye the seals.
When a seal is requesting backup you know the shit is real hot. These guys don't flinch, they don't whine, they don't beg, they fight and they die and this seal called out for help. Whether in time or not, that fricken coward of obama should have sent every asset we could on bengazi. Just one Raptor flying low would have been enough to scare the shit out of the cowards attacking our embassy. A c130 targeting your ass firing one bullet ever square inch will make them shit their pants.
See this is the problem with you, you read an instantly believe the dribble from the left side, oh nothing could be done. But in the back of your mind you should be thinking, REALLY! We have the most advanced military in the world and we can't do anything, that should be your first question. Doesn't make sense. And what backs it up is you still don't have the survivers talking do you, why? Like I said, you need to stop drinking the kool-aid, think. Did you at least read anything from heritage foundation? You want me to read all the left biased shit you can find and believe what you are putting out there, but you don't even try to see the other side.

Since we won't believe that crap you are trying to push because it is all tainted to the left for multiple reasons, mostly for money so they don't lose grants or speaking events. and you won't read the so called right side and BTW Krauthammer is not far right, that just tells me you didn't even try.

Global warming, yes australia is hot, wisonsin is having it's coldest temp and most snow ever. that's how this planet works, had nothing to do with us, the planet adjusts, it is just arrogance on you and your liberals buddies that we have that much influence on this planet. Like tom said, it would be nice for a little warmer weather, better growing season is the biggest. Most of the clown scientists you listed also say another ice age is inevitable, so how does that work with your global warming agenda, not too good.
And the argument, it is too cold, or too rainy, or too dry, or too humid do to global warming is a joke because there can be no counter agrument. How does one agrue that.

I am pressing hard on you, again when someone tells you they can't do anything with the most powerful military in the world, to help out a seal in trouble, tell me that doesn't make sense to you? Please answer this, don't throw at me the hand picked liberal commander saying it wasn't safe, we don't know who was there or how bad, that's why we couldn't send anybody. Please think, don't pull a liberal article out of your ass, use your brain, I guarantee you, you will say, hey this doesn't make sense.

Lets start here, no articles, lets try this with common knowledge, we have read enough on both sides to form an opinion, now lets put it in our own words.

So, Defiant: you truly believe that all of these organizations represent some sort of global warming agenda? That is utterly ridiculous.

U.S. Academy of Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization (NOAA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
European Academy of Sciences
British Academy of Sciences
European Science Foundation
African Academy of Sciences
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Goelogical Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society
World Meteorological Organization
InterAcademy Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists
National Geographic
United Nations
Environmental Protection Agency...

Look at some of the name, EPA -- they work for obama.
United Nations, their not liberal at all, good grief.
National Geographic, not conservative,
Anything with European is super liberal.
African academy of sciences, really!

You tell me how many of these organizations depend on grants, do you know, when you find out I think you will be surprised, find out where their operating money comes from and I think you will have your answer.

NASA got nailed for putting their heating instruments near black top to skew the results so their grants can continue from the gov't. The emails that were intercepted that were saying to put out false data to get money, why don't you guys bring these little instances up, I know why, doesn't fit your little liberal agenda, too bad facts sometimes get in the way of your false ideology.

Well, as a former member of the American Chemical Society, I must have thrown out all the issues related to leftist political indoctrination. I just remember technical articles...

Ok, how does american Chemical Society get their funds, you should know?

But yeah, your "It's cold in Wisconsin so global warming is stupid" argument has real value and weighs up nicely against peer reviewed science.

Jesus Christ!
You see, there are these things called complex systems...

With more than 161,000 members, the American Chemical Society (ACS) is the world’s largest scientific society and one of the world’s leading sources of authoritative scientific information. A nonprofit organization, chartered by Congress, ACS is at the forefront of the evolving worldwide chemical enterprise and the premier professional home for chemists, chemical engineers and related professions around the globe.

look blu, it's VERY cold in wisconsin, it VERY hot in austrialia, the planet adjusts, I see you missed this in my previous post, so I will say it again. The planet adjusts, we also have millions of more miles of ice in the artic. this is a cycle, prove to me it is man made, prove it without a doubt, can you do it? Otherwise it is what the earth does.

where does the ACS get their money to operate, it was a simple question, wasn't it?

It gets money from the dues of chemists.

So, on the one hand we have the armchair science of Defiant who flippantly says that the world adjusts so whatever and on the other hand the opinions of 160000 educated chemists...

Here is one of them, geeee, Green funding, I wonder what kind of results these people would like to get more money.


Green Chemistry Grants




A primary objective of the ACS Green Chemistry Institute® (ACS GCI) is to advance research in green chemistry by promoting funding, increasing opportunities, and developing information on the benefits of green chemistry.


A primary objective of the ACS Green Chemistry Institute® (ACS GCI) is to advance research in green chemistry by promoting funding, increasing opportunities, and developing information on the benefits of green chemistry.

And you are casually ignoring all of the ACS Petroleum initiatives :)