hmm... y2k all over again?

OK, so I have until 2015 to somehow get Jake Gyllenhaal to fall in love with me and risk death by wolves to get me some antibiotics? I gotta get on that ASAP...

I agree cassedy. This is just the next round of "We are all gonna die, this is how." I for one am ready to see a turn in society away for the perceived self-destruction. We are going to die someday. Let's focus on the great things we as a nation/world can do until that time comes...

I was about to comment but my uncle just called me to Tim russet has died.

lili was he sick?

They say he collasped on set.

"Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. No details were immediately available."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/?GT1=43001

Whoa.

yeah, he died of a heart attack! It's shocking!

it's up on citizen now.

Oh, and as for the topic in this post - I am with cassedy and undave on this one!

Em - good luck with Jake, be sure to keep us updated as to your progress!

Actually December 21, 2012 is the big day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11iCmzGnOI8

They had a very interesting show about it on the discovery channel. I personally think I'll put about 15 visa cards to good use....and then I can only hope the end will come.

Yes, "here today gone tomorrow" right? But I'd rather leave the world in a better place than I found it. Why aren't we seeing what we can do to make things BETTER so that generations from now people can live better, not worse, than we are now? Because we are selfish. We think only of the present, and forget that after we die there will be more people to suffer for the mistakes we make today. No, the world is not going to end in 2015, but I do believe we are reaching a turning point in the history of or planet and our people. It has to get better at some point, or we will self-destruct.

I forgot about Y2K!

rivrchild - that is exactely the type of thinking I was referring to. Everything we do today will impact tomorrow. It is true that the younger you are, the more you (people in general) think only about yourself. We aren't going to destroy the world for future generations, no more than the previous generations have done so for us. Why do we need to believe that everything we do is so incredibly destructive?

Normally I would roll my eyes but there is just too much crap going on in the world right now from floods to tornadoes to earthquakes etc for me to think yeah whatever.

Actually, there is just faster processing and reporting of the "crap" going on in the world. We barely have time to process a flood, when a famous TV newsman dies, and send us further into shock. There isn't more crap happening.

Humans are fundamentally adaptable creatures. We will figure something out.

I am going to make a video for this, but right in the middle of whining about natural disasters I am going have zombies galore, the romero shuffling kind not the running kind, and they are going to help us with thier rotting flesh make new compost to plant trees, and they can lay down and make new levees or eat the people who arent living green.

I would love to see what life would be like in 2100 and what would they say about us. Would it be the same way some of us imagine the 20s or 30s? This would be the perfect time for those wacky the world is coming to an end bible bashers.

What a bunch of BS.

I don't bother watching this stuff. It gives me anxiety. In fact, that's why I don't watch the news or any news channels, either - except Daily Show and Colbert Report, of course. Comedic, satiric news = win. All other news is just talking for the sake of filling time between commercials. :/

yes i think its bs too, i mean its absolutely unfathomable that human beings will not live forever no matter what crap we pump into the planet. oil will surely last forever, water will surely last forever and carbon monoxide is good for the planet. who the hell do those scientists think they are doing years and years of research just to lie to us? bastards!

This is why I am delighted that Bush and his administration is taking my idea to ban all scientific research seriously. It's the only way to combat climate change.

dont forget books raci, if we ban them then we wont have terrorism

In less than 100 years? Scare tactic. I'd give it 500 years maybe as long as humans in general continue on the same destructive path.

I remember back in the 80s people were yelling about the coming ice age and Nostradamus' prediction of someone wearing a blue turban starting a nuclear war in 1999. I wish they'd make up their minds on how civilization is ending so I know where to build my bunker.

I think we're in more danger from the environmental extremists than anything else. They want us to only buy locally-grown organic produce, go vegan, and travel only by bicycle or solar-powered public transit. Our homes should be small and built of recycled materials. Is it only me, or does this sound a bit like Monty Python's take on peasants of the middle ages. (Thinking of the early scenes of "Holy Grail"....)

that is such a myth laine, no one wants you to go vegan (although if we stopped eating meat it would def. benefit the planet), no one is ordering you to have a smaller house or car. the only thing anyone is asking you do is make smarter choices. do you have to drive a hummer or a big 4x4 that gets 2 miles to the gallon? do you have to have your air conditioning on when its 75 outside? can you recycle? i know that its hard to have a car that you put less gas in and i know its tough to recycle, but these are thing we should be doing with or without the global warming hoax.

And yet environmental extremists are destroying McMansions in the name of saving the planet...

there are extremists in every cause, it has nothing to do with the cause itself only the sanity of the person.

In my opinion it's certainly a possibility and I don't know if I would use the term scare tactic but it is a point which strikes fear into the hearts of men. Since it is the topic of the documentary it is also clearly an unavoidable point to disclose.

Hell the last century was nearly the beginning of the end when we came close to a nuclear exchange with the former Soviet Union twice. One of those times we were as close as several minutes due to some technical misinformation.

Look it's quite a simple equation. You have a planet (the host) which is confined to its dimensions and ability to produce resources at a constant rate. You then have a species whose population increases annually exponentially. Resource consumption increases annually exponentially. Waste product increases annually exponentially. Wouldn't logic have it that the host (Earth) which is at a constant dimension and ability to produce resources at a constant rate be at some point overwhelmed?

There will come a day when humanity reaches an epiphany and on that day we will do one of two things. Breath a collective sigh of relief or asking ourselves why, why didn't we do something when we had the chance? If we find ourselves in a position to ask why I’ll tell ya when they look back on all the talk about we can't change to a green economy because it will be too difficult and bad for the economy it will look pretty damn silly.

To my darling Flutterpie....it is bs. Complete and utter bs. You sure took alot out of my little post. Accused me of many things. Must be nice to be so all knowing!

oh my lovely gs, are you saying pollution is good for the planet or that it is completely impossible that pollution could harm the planet?

"yes i think its bs too, i mean its absolutely unfathomable that human beings will not live forever no matter what crap we pump into the planet. oil will surely last forever, water will surely last forever and carbon monoxide is good for the planet. who the hell do those scientists think they are doing years and years of research just to lie to us? bastards!"

We are working on what we "dump" into our waterways.
Here is a list of oil reserves(according to OPEC):
Kuwait: 92bn (64bn)
UAE: 92bn (34bn)
Iran: 93bn (64bn)
Iraq: 100bn (48bn)
Saudi Arabia: 258bn (170bn)
So we aren't going to run out of oil anytime in the next 100 years, and that doesn't include any oil we have in our nation.
Water is a great commodity, and we are developing ways to convert oceanic (salt)water to pure drinking water. CO is not necessarily bad for the planet, in the same way that CO2 is not bad for this planet. Scientists have performed years and years, but they can only guess at outcomes based on that research, as they don't know the full effects. They have only been recording temps for the last 100 years, and have no idea what the causes of the Earth's warming are, now or in the past, let alone the perspective consequences. To say that we are going to be gone in 100 years, based on such limited research is b.s.

Ah, dave beat me to it. Alaska, coastal US and Brazil have huge amounts of untapped oil to supply if only the left would let us drill. sigh.

It's not just the left, or the far left. It's the "All corporations are out to destroy the world" left.

I also don't get why we have to get everyone switched to alternative fuels now. We need to do something to decrease our demand on oil, but let's begin researching the next generation of innovations as well. Hybrids and electric cars (and bio-fuels) are merely a band aid, not a solution.

"The entire world assumes Saudi Arabia can carry everyone's energy needs on its back cheaply. If this turns out not to work there is no 'plan B.' Global spare capacity is now 'all Saudi Arabia.' This is the world's insurance policy and no third party inspector has examined it for years. Conventional wisdom says 'don't worry. trust today,' but if conventional wisdom is wrong, the world faces a giant energy crisis." Calling for large-scale research into new energy sources, he said: "If all these worries are wrong, it is like our preoccupation with nuclear war or future global warming. But even if part of it becomes true and not expected, the results are awful." Coming from someone who has advised the secretary of energy and the 2000 Bush campaign, this is a warning worth heeding.

This is actually a 2004 study on Saudi Arabias oil supply. I thought this was interesting also:

Some economists who reviewed Simmons' work rejected it on the basis that if oil prices rise high enough, advanced recovery techniques will be applied, averting supply problems. But Simmons disputes this wisdom. For a decade the technological revolution which includes horizontal drilling accelerated the extraction and created "monstrous decline rate." He is adamant that the Saudi oil miracle is fading. "The next generation of Saudi oil will also be harder to extract and therefore more expensive. In 2-3 years we will have conclusive evidence that Saudi oil is peaking," he told Energy Security. Furthermore, he explained that in Saudi Arabia, seawater is injected into the giant fields to pressure the oil toward the top of the reservoir. The problem is that over time, the volume of water that is pumped along with the oil increases, and the volume of oil declines proportionally until it becomes uneconomical to lift the oil.

In todays current geopolitical climate, its interesting that you would have faith in the OPEC countries and their ability to supply us with oil. Does the "100 years of oil" idea factor in India and Chinas growing demand? Does it factor in growing hostility from Iran?

It's not that I have faith in OPEC's willingness to supply, as much as just the fact that they have the oil. I've read in a couple places (I don't remember where) that we have more oil in and around the US than all of OPEC at this point, but we refuse to drill.

The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth $1.26 trillion.

In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain enough oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 7 months (4.3B estimate) to 19 months (12B estimate). If used to completely replace oil imported from the Persian Gulf (775M barrels in 2007[12]), oil from ANWR would last from approximately 5.5 years (4.3B estimate) to 15 years (12B estimate).[13]

Brazil-They currently are 17th in oil exporting and a possible discovery could boost them to 4th but they are still in the exploration and drilling phase of the process so no one really knows how much oil will come out of that.

My GS, with all these maybe this in ANWAR and maybe that in Brazil, how do you know they are viable factors for sustaining oil demand?

UD-i have heard that we "refuse" to drill also and that is simply not true, ANWR is not oil mecca neither is the coast of florida and we are already drilling off the coast of Louisana. To be honest, i am not againist drilling. I truly feel that by using current technology, the major american oil guys have vested interest in not destroying the environment but millions up millions of dollars have been spent in exploration in and around the us. trust me when i say that there are ways around the environmentalists and if anwr were a sure thing, they would be in there in a hearbeat.

If we aren't against drilling, then tell me why is China drilling off the coast of Florida, and yet we aren't doing anything about it. Why is it that we didn't drill there years ago?? Just curious

And don't forget the threat of other countries horizontal drilling OUR oil.

"America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant."

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

During his "drill, drill, drill" rant yesterday, Dick Cheney complained that Cuba and China are drilling for oil closer to the coast of Florida than American companies are currently allowed. It's become a common talking point for Republicans arguing that more areas should be opened to drilling -- but, reports McClatchy, it appears to be bogus.

If we aren't against drilling, then tell me why is China drilling off the coast of Florida, and yet we aren't doing anything about it. Why is it that we didn't drill there years ago?? Just curious

[N]o one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.

"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.
A Congressional Research Service report on Cuba [PDF] came to the same conclusion last year: "While there has been some concern about China's potential involvement in offshore deepwater oil projects, to date its involvement in Cuba's oil sector has been focused on onshore oil extraction in Pinar del Rio province [in Cuba] through its state-run China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation."

[UPDATE: Cheney's office admitted he was wrong.]

as far as the north dakota drilling goes (the oil your talking about sits on in between nd and montana) it can increase our oil supplies by 10 times. they have been drilling there since 1951 but new exploration in 2001 came upon the oil boon you are talking about, gs. we have been drilling in that area 2004 but surprisingly enough in four years we have not seen the benefits of this. the fact is that nothing is really as it seems, its very easy to blame environmentalists but in reality, drilling for oil is a costly and disappointing job:

Much of the natural gas that has also been found in the drilling here is being burned off while workers race to build new natural gas plants in the region.

The area needs more pipeline to make use of the oil it is finding. It also needs more electricity for its new gas plants, more fresh water for all this drilling, more housing and more workers.

Some also wonder how long the oil boom will last. In places like Williston, a city of more than 12,000 about 70 miles, or 112 kilometers, west of Stanley, people have been through such a boom before and suffered through the bust that followed.

When oil showed promise in the early 1980s, some thought Williston's population would grow to 40,000. City officials took on more than $20 million in debt to build streets and sewers for subdivisions that never arrived after the price of oil collapsed in the mid-1980s.

flutter, you are almost verbatim from the anti-oil enviromentalist cites. If you explore other sources you will see that that information is only backed by one study.

If we had started drilling in Anwar back in the days of Mr. Bill Clinton's era we would have a million barrels a day going coming out on the market with half the proceeds going to Alaska.

The Chinese and Cubans are already building oil platforms all along our outer continental shelf to get the oil we refuse to get. Another problem is that the BILLIONS in shared revenues the government would get will instead be given to China and Cuba. What a mistake.

I am all for making sure we move very rapidly towards alternative fuels and methods but it is just ridiculous to sit on our thumbs and not drill here.

nooo not really gs, the anwr info comes from wiki and there is absolutely no way of knowing how much oil is in anwr. its a guesstimate, an assumption. as far china drilling along our coast, its simply not true. it was an offhand comment made by dick cheney that conservative radio ran away. it has since been refuted by cheney and it was never confirmed or denied by china or the white house. but gosh that just sounds sooo sexy "china is drilling off our coasts and we have to pay 4 bucks a gallon for oil" it works on soo many levels, dems can "that big bad oil man bush is selling us out, china paid our deficits and now they are taking our oil" and conservatives can say "the environmentalists did this they are soo bad they are making hard working people pay high gas prices" the north dakota info was actually a jan articled by a local paper (something herald, i believe, sorry its late). and as a side note, i am not againist drilling in the us, trust me im the last one to chain herself to a tree but at the same time i feel that we need to change our habits. its insane that this country has failed at a mass transit system and that we think that oil will last forever. the simple fact is that its a hope and a prayer that we will have oil that will last us a hundred years. i believe in alternative methods but we are a long ways away. biofuels have been proven to be more harmful to the environment than the gas emitted from cars and ethanol may be contributing to the global food crisis. we cant control what government does, the deals they make and the time and money that is wasted but we can make smarter decisions on our oil consumption.

Never use Wiki as a source. I could go in and add that all the oil from Anwr is pink and magical to wiki. But I have to tell you this, sweet flutter, it is refreshing to have such an intelligent conversation with someone that has an opposing view! You get my sarcasm and dish it back out, and I love it!