Mother Lover wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:58 PM:I hate the idea of ruining our coastline and tourist industry for a few barrels of oil. Let the price go to $10 per gallon and people will leave their Hummers and demand will drop. All without destroying our mother ocean.

Kent wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:41 PM:Let's drill for oil. No more excuses. Certainly the tiny area in ANWAR that we want to drill should be available. And the Bakken Formation. We should be able to drill there as well. Let's have a Manhattan Project style effort. I can virtually guarantee you that a legitimate effort on our part to drill for oil will cause OPEC to lower their price over night to try to keep us from doing so. We need to proceed with vigor to make sure the price of oil is the lowest it reasonably can get.

Reardon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:53 PM:Absolutely! We cannot afford to have any oil wells anywhere in a state that has earthquakes. We can’t afford to have any nuclear, or windmills, or geothermal, or, well anything.

How would you like to be standing under a home solar panel if one gets dislodged in an earthquake and falls on your head! While that might be less harmful than a 600 foot windmill, it will still kill you.

We must retreat to caves, ride burros, eat berries and live the simple life. We can’t afford to take chances. The homeless are our model – they recycle everything, have no carbon footprint, use no energy.

years wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:54 PM:40 years ago computers filled whole rooms and consisted of tubes and discrete transistors. The single PC that sits atop your desk contain more computing power than all the computers used by NASA throughout the Lunar Explorations days combined! Drilling technology and lessons learned from disaster such as the Santa Barbara Quake and resulting oil spill enable significant levels of safety far beyond anything known 40 years ago. Remember, in the early 70's there was a quake in Sylmar that dropped the VA hospital. Today hospitals are required to be built to standard great enough to withstand such a quake (in fact, that is why Tri-Cities Hospital keeps trying to pass a bond, so that their older portions of the hospital can be brought up to standard). Yes, technology has greatly improved, while fear mongers like Dr. Driscoll (I studied under him at Woods Hole, before he came to SIO, and know him well) have remained stuck in their dying ways. Rather than taking my degree from WHOI and staying in my labs, buried in books, I headed off to the oil fields to aid the oil companies to do things better. Millions of dollars from my employers have found their way to WHOI, SIO and professors like Dr. Driscoll. In fact, thanks to research done by Dr. Driscoll, on underwater seismology, the oil companies (who paid for his research) know better where to place their rigs and wells to ensure that just such an avalanche, as that which Dr. Driscoll fears, is least likely to happen. Yet, he and his colleagues continue to bite the hands that feed them refusing to recognize the serious damage being done every year from the natural seeps along the CA coast. Drilling will bring down the pressure and stop those seeps, thereby greatly improving the quality of our beaches: NO MORE TAR and much lower level of dangerous microbes that feed on the oil that is constantly seeping. Yes, every year more oil from these seeps is poured into our local waters than that release by the Exxon Valdese. It is time we open the local waters to drilling and take control of our economy rather than being reliant upon countries that would rather see us pour our money into their pockets and become one of their future acquisitions!

Slant Drill wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:59 PM:If you fear underwater land slides, then slan drill from the coast! In fact, there are plenty of areas along Camp Pendleton where such coudl be done without causing any problems for the Marines or for local home owners, businesses, etc. Of course, if the oil companies woudl like to use my yard, and are willing to pay me some rent for the land they need to use to do the drilling, I'd be more than willing to let them put up a rig and drill to their heart's content while I get all the money I will ever need to purchase gasoline and other energy products well into my later years! Bring it on! Drill Here, DRILL NOW!

Dont like oil wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:57 PM:Then YOU stop using it. Of course, just like the "Deep Ecologists" who think the world should have a much smaller population, the anti-oil crowd don't, for the most part, actually live life according to their positions. CA is the most hypocritical economy on earth. We all drive everywhere, most goods we use are shipped long distance, and our lives are dependent on imported water and air conditioning, yet we prohibit production of energy here, or the building of power lines to bring it in.
You can't have it all ways. Live like the homeless, or produce energy.

CA Earth Quakes wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:12 PM:Look at all the damage that has been done over the last 100 years in CA due to earthquakes. Look at all the damage done in CA over the last 100 years due to fires. Look at all the damage done over the last 100 years due to flash floods. Look at all the damage done over the last 100 years due to high waves and high winds. Look at all the people who have been killed over the years in CA due to wild animals. It's time that our Government do something about all this death and destruction in CA!!!! It's time that CA be declaired uninhabitable and the people be forcefuly moved out of CA for their own protection! Hey, if it was Constitutional for the Government to relocate people during WWII for the good of the people (and yes it went to the US Supreme Court and was upheld and NEVER overturned!) then it should be ok now too! Yes, the Government knows best what the people need, and we certainly don't need more oil to put into those poluting machines that humans created to detroy Mother Earth! Obviously all these fires, earthquakes, floods, waves and wind, wild animals etc. are simply Mother Earth fighting back against those nasty humans that are out to get her! Get rid of those Humans and everything will be so much better.

But who would be left to know these things?

Oh well, got to get back to tending my whale oil lamps. You know, whale oil is even more expensive than crude, so I have to be very careful that I get the greatest efficiency out of my lamps. By the way, does anybody know someone who can help me with my windmill that I use to pump my water from the well, and to generate the electricity I use to power this PC? I've been forced to use my horse lately as the darn windmill seems to have frozen up due to a lack of oil.

Karl wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:17 PM:Mother Lover
[-] wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:58 PM:

A FEW barrels of oil? A FEW? Get real Mama Cass, your VW van circa 1962 runs on gas also unless you have turned it into a flower pot.

Mike wrote on Jul 3, 2008 3:27 AM:To Mother Lover. You sound like one of the thousands of earth muffins. Don't do this and don't do that. Get a grip lady, it is time to start drilling. If you don't like it pack up and mover somewhere else.

gimmeabreak wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:15 AM:Yeah, all heed the rallying cry of Bush,Cheney, Limbaugh! Drilling will save us from eeeeeeevilll tera-ist OPEC-ers, won't it? Nope, it will take years for that oil to make the market, the expenditures with oil at the current price will lock in the investors' expectation of that kind of return (not lower the price of oil) anyway, and we'll take on the risk of screwing up our coasts for a lifetime or longer. They're still cleaning off birds and rocks in Prince William Sound for heaven's sake. and that was 20 years ago. You want a Manhattan Project style effort? Let's do that with fuel cells, wind power and renewable sources of energy. No more big bucks for exxonmobil and friends.

Lame duck wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:14 AM:When is this Lame Duck President going to realize that drilling for more oil is not the solution? The "old boys club" has profited significantly since he took office.

Save our Mother wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:32 AM:Lets remember Ocean give the world life. We have already destroyed to much of her health. Let do things to improve mother oceans health not harm it.

Bob wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:05 AM:It's clear those calling for oil drilling off the coast of California are not coastal business owners that make their living via surf culture or tourism.

It's also clear people calling for drilling for oil off the California coast value short term conveinence over long to sustainability and ecological well-being

How many times do we wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:25 AM:have to look at the gasoline pumps showing $7.00 a gallon? DRILL NOW!!! If the ecowackos don't like it move to Greenland!

John E wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:29 AM:Does it make more sense to drill now or to wait 10 to 20 years, when crude oil will be worth at least $300/barrel and improved (safer and more economically and energy efficient) drilling technologies will be readily available? I favor playing strategically for the long term by using up Middle Eastern oil now and saving ours for later. If we start drilling more oil right now, the impact on gasoline prices will be neither immediate nor substantial. "Peak oil" is a reality -- the world is not running out of petroleum, but it certainly is running out of readily available oil which can be extracted cheaply.

Those who pit energy development against conservation or the economy against the environment are creating false dichotomies. The only win-win for our society is to embrace a multipronged approach to addressing our energy needs, and this includes aggressive conservation (energy-efficient buildings, appliances and cars, walking or bicycling for short trips), nuclear power (fission as a temporary bridge technology, fusion for the long term), coal (preferably liquified or gasified in-situ), solar (particularly in all new construction and major remodels), biofuels (from switchgrass and refuse oil, rather than from food crops), and, where economically and environmentally reasonable, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric. We will not spend money on researching, developing, and deploying alternative energy sources and conservation measures unless the price of gasoline stays around $4/gallon, the point at which John Q. Public actually appears to be making some lifestyle adjustments, such as carpooling or actually considering fuel economy when choosing a new vehicle.

Earth Muffin wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:32 AM:Geeze and here I thought that oil was something mother earth produce naturally? Or wait it came from dinosaurs right? Billion and Billions of dead dinosaurs produce that oil. I am glad I am not a product of higher education and for you that are, I would demand my money back, but be sure they don't repay you with bananas, don't want them to make a monkey out of you.

Question wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:38 AM:How come dead dinosaurs turn into oil and dead people and animals turn into dust? Just curious.

To the Dems wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:52 AM:if the price of gasoline continues to rise, don't even worry about putting a democrat in any office, we will vote the ones (reps)in that will drill.

How elitist wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:17 AM:of these enviros to prevent drilling here at home, yet think it's perfectly okay to drill in far off places. Doesn't that spoil the 'view' for the people in those places? Or, do they even have the intelligence to think beyond their own backyard? And, hey, Bob, do you really think surfers will stop surfing because of a handful of oil platforms in view? Guess you haven't been up the coast to Santa Barbara County, where the most popular surf spot in the area is 'despoiled' by an oil pipeline loading pier, and oil platforms not too far off, at Rincon beach? Never noticed all the high-dollar homes right there on the bluff, either, huh?

Walt wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:19 AM:I suppose there is an underwater equivalent to; The sky is falling.

The envirowackos wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:25 AM:have no problem with keeping our military in Iraq to protect Shell, Exxon and the others. But if we want our troops home, they say NO! The troops must stay. Fruitcakes!

Concerned One wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:06 AM:I used to love Scripps, and Surfrider and other advocates for the ocean. I have been a long time supporter, but, I've stopped contributing to them because of their blatant obstructionism. I believe we have the technology and science to drill off the coast with minimum effects to the environment (see "years" post above). However, I'd like to make sure that the powers that drill, big oil, big business, government, etc., will be regulated fairly. Right now we have higher prices because of market conditions. Speculators and profit takers are disrupting the flow of oil. We need to address that side of the equation before we tap our resources. And, BTW I don't give a damn if we drill the Middle East dry first. It's on us to come up with a comprehensive solution for America (conservation, alternatives, technology, legislation). That's my two drops. Regards, C-1.

Ummmm wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:09 AM:Am I the only one that sees the logic of if you drill into a fault line, you might trigger something? And we're talking about drlling up and down the coast? I'm with mother, let's screw up one of the last good things we have on this planet rather than looking to alternative sources. The Middle East doesn't have to bomb us...they're killing us with oil.

Randy wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:27 AM:Oceanside's Rocky Chavez's first act as Mayor: approve surrounding the pier with offshore oil rigs!

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:36 AM:To Ummmmm: Middle East oil is a problem, not a crises. Most of our foreign oil comes from the combination of Canada and Mexico, but if YOU believe that Middle Eastern oil is a massive danger, please stop buying oil and oil products -- gas, oil, grease, plastic, and all of the products made and transported by oil, which is...EVERYTHING!

Do your patriotic duty, stop buying everything...oh, BTW, every time you exhale you ditribute CO2 into the atmosphere, so...HOLD YOUR BREATH!

North county residents wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:55 AM:are you all out of your minds? When you drive the Santa Barbara coast the monstrosity of the oil rigs ruins the view. Not to mention the oil off the west coast would only be enough for less than 2 years consumption. If we don't take care of the environment our children are all going to pay. Wake up!

Wont work wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:56 AM:For all of the oil drilling advocates. It won't make a dent in our current consumption needs. Our refineries are running at capacity. Virtually every drilling rig and tanker ship is leased out. We have just over 5% of the worlds population and consume 30% of production Daily production is 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.) Consumption is 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.), Exports are 1.048 million bbl/day (2004) . Why are we exporting oil? Even if we produced 15% more oil it would not make a difference in prices. If the price goes down...people return to there wasteful ways.

Youve been suckered wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:57 AM:Sounds like the majority of commenters here have been drinking the Bush/Cheney kool aid for too long. Why don't you people wake up and think for yourselves for once? The GLOBAL petroleum market is being manipulated by speculators, driving up prices when there is actually sufficient supply. I have seen no evidence (yet), but it would not surprise me to learn that the Bush/Cheney junta and friends are actually behind this run-up in prices in an effort to get citizens riled enough to allow drilling wherever they please. If you chumps really "hate" the
OPEC nations so much, quit consuming the oil that funds alleged "terror" activities. I expect asinine comments from the likes of Reardon, but it sounds like he has lots of company on this issue.

The only commenter here (thus far) to make a thoughtful, cogent argument is "John E" above. Everyone else is just blubbering because they don't want to give up the giant SUV's and enormous trucks that they need for "work" (yeah, right). Get with the program and we can have a "green" economic boom that would rival our post-war expansion. Until then, get ready for $7 gas or higher. It's up to you.

ignorance wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:01 AM:The solution it's to move away from oil not drill for more! Instead of spending all those billions of dollars in Iraq, why don't they invest in electric cars.

If President Bush stop thinking about his boys in the oil industry and more about us poor people. Actually since Bush is friends with exxon and chevron why don't he ask them to release the patent for the car battery that they refused to share with car companies.

For the ignorant crowd, technology exist right now to produce electric cars that can go fro 200-300 miles at top speed of 90 mph. Unfortunately, the oil companies bought and patent that technology.

Bush seemed to violate everyone's civil rights except the oil companies

Gee wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:04 AM:this is kinda spooky if there was an underwater earthquake gazillions of oil could erupt into the ocean. What would Mother Nature do???? I know we could send the envirowackos to the bottom of the sea with a giant cork! I love the way mankind in his ignorance thinks he is more powerful than Mother Nature. I do believe Mother Nature was here long before mankind and will be here long after mankind. Besides that, has anybody heard when California is suppose to drop into the ocean, I have been waiting forty years for the prediction to come true. ...

Wake up folks wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:16 AM:One spill and the tourism trade goes to zero! No dollars wrecks the economy of coastal towns. Quit voting in jerks like bush and bilbary. Look toward the future and how to protect finite resources like water, shorelines, and yes, even people and clean air.

What is big oil wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:41 AM:Do you folks realize that the U.S. does not have a "big oil" company? ExxonMobil is the largest US owned oil company and it ranks 14th in the world. ExxonMobil is dwarfed by the truly big oil companies which are all foreign owned. 94% of the worlds oil is locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the U.S.

Thanks to our Democratic legislators, Exxon has to buy 90% of the crude oil it refines from these foreign companies.

Do you realise that China is drilling in the Caribbean off of Cuba?

It is high time we started tapping OUR resources and stop the dependence we have on foreign governments and companies.

My fellow roaches wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:49 AM:with the extinction of mankind, I am pleased to announce the earth is once more ours! YESSSSS!!!! Now spread over the planet and multiply and be sure to BURY any cans of Raid you find! Little did the poor roaches know that in their ignorance they were going to posion Mother Earth.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:12 AM:We could drill off the coast and every square inch of the country and the price of gasoline would never go down. China has a billion people, an exponentially growing middle class, and a huge rate of industrial growth. China's demand for oil will suck up most new sources. The biggest reason for the high price of gasoline in the U. S. is because the dollar is worth half what it was before Bush's war put us so heavily in debt. The internal combustion engine is a dinosaur. The world is changing. We'd better tighten our belts and get used to it.

BOB wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:25 AM:How elitist,

How ironic. Need I remind you San Diego is not Santa Barbara? You mention surfers I mention coastal business owners who make a living from tourism.

Oil pollutes 100% of the time. To continue drilling is to perpetuate and equate pollution as progress.

Hey why dont all of wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:27 AM:you global warming, climate changing, evironmentalist grab your boarding passes, I hear Hale-Bopp the comet is coming around soon.

Roger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:41 AM:How, exactly, is increasing the global supply of oil by less than 1% going to cause gasoline prices to plummet?

BOB wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:43 AM:How elitist,
How ironic. Need I remind you San Diego is not Santa Barbara? You mention surfers, I mentioned coastal business owners who make a living from tourism.

Oil pollutes 100% of the time. To continue drilling is to perpetuate and equate pollution as progress.

hardtack wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:13 PM:If oil company geologists, engineers, CEOs and stockholders are willing to risk millions of dollars on building a drilling platform beyond sight of shore (approx. 9 miles or more), why should I have a problem with it?

If I were to concern myself over something collapsing from a seismic event, it would be
a freeway overpass, a bridge, or some part of the government infrastructure where no one has a personal, financial interest in the structure’s soundness.

This is not to disparage the ability of public works professionals – it just seems logical to me that an entity willing to invest a great deal of money in some enterprise should, along with their insurance underwriters, have more incentive to see it succeed than anyone else.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:40 PM:To Roger:
Why should we care about the 'Global Supply'? You can thank the Dem leadership for our dependence on that global supply though. We should care about OUR supply. The Global supply is just fine and is not our concern. Our supply on the other hand is in dire need of some boosting by whatever the % is that we can get from OUR resources.

Wake up dude.

MarinGunner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:49 PM:To increase drilling and adding to our domestic supply will reduce our dependance on global oil. We need to do this in conjunction with the development of alternative fuel choices. Eventually we can ween off of petroleum, but that is years and years away. In the south-east there is research going on for the use of kudzu as an alternatve fuel. We have a great resource here in California by way of wind and solar energy, but the use of those alternatives is stymied by liberals with their globalization agenda.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:05 PM:A previous blogger said oil polutes. So what! We need to drive. We can't and shouldn't have to change for anyone. So what if nuclear or oil damage the environment, without it our old economy can't survive. Wake up and drill.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:06 PM:I agree with Marinegunner. The military tells him the truths and only the truth. Luckily he skipped college so he can't decipher information on his own.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:17 PM:To Ignorance: Please provide a reliable source for your claim -- it is just the update of the old :fish carb" story of my youth claiming that a carb was discovered that provided 100 MPG but the oil companies bought it up.

It was false 50 years ago, and it is false now -- unless you have a reliable source.

Reardon wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:28 PM:In an effort to drive Reardon off these blogs, the blogger at 1:05 has used my name on posts that I did not make.

It is an effort to censor my remarks by using my name with spurious messages, and it is successful.

I will post no more on this blog subject. The vandal wins again.

Wow wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:31 PM:Perhaps the NC Times can do a whole series of articles examining different potential energy projects in the region and the reasons environmentalists oppose them. Nuclear power plant? Coal power plant? Windmills off the coast? Liquid Natural Gas terminals? I'm sure environmetalists can offer some endangered species, unlikely disaster scenario, or other excuse for why nothing should ever be built.

BOB wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:31 PM:The old economy is already dead you pro-oil people just won't move on.

Paul wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:53 PM:So do hurricanes and oil don't mix. Folks there is risk in any oil handling. Let's see oil tankers shouldn't be allowed to drive on the freeways due to unattentive drivers on their cell phones. Oil pipelines over land should not be allowed, due to earthquakes causing breaches in the pipe. How far do you want to go?

Lying Pigs wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:09 PM:Both the Reps and the Dems, promise to get us out of the war, riiiight! They now want us to stay and protect the oil companies from the Iraq war! Senator Barack Obama promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month. A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.

Frances wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:14 PM:Drill, drill, drill. Very interesting people say "leave the hummers at home" if you are using ANY type of car than uses oil it doesn't matter the size. Interesting also, are the enviornmentalist who only want to destroy. Give them a reason anything would work and they will come up with a reason it can't..usually invalid. Do these people even think, at all, about the impact of NO oil or letting it go to $10 a gal? I can't think of ONE person who lives in our GREAT United States that doesn't benefit from the use of oil in some way or another. Yes, even the person iving in a tent benefitted, how do you think that tent was made, let alone for to the store which it was purchased. Instead of saying we can't, it will hurt the enviornment, etc, let's drill and use what we have here, available to us.....none the less, WE should use it before it is gone, especially since other countries are ALREADY using our oil. Wake up. DRILL

Frances wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:17 PM:Enough of the Chicken Little tactics, DRILL already.

Blah blah blah wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:41 PM:Reardon continues to prattle on and on and on...insulting our fighting men in uniform while he's at it. I'd attack his patriotism but I'm not a jingoist scumbag like the Current Resident of the White House, so I'll let that one slide.

To "MarineGunner" and his point, however: there is NO domestic supply. There is ONLY a global market for petroleum. If Exxon were drilling in ANWR or off our coast TODAY, that oil would be sold to refiners on the GLOBAL market at market rates. That's how the MARKET ECONOMY works. Republicans and other deluded know-nothings love to crow about how great free-market capitalism is, at least until the point when the market tells them that gas is $4.50/gallon. Good luck getting Bush and Congress to reform the oil futures market though. Like I said before, I can't prove it but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the market is being manipulated by someone with national power.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 3:18 PM:To Blah Blah Blah: Ok,it may be true that there is no longer a domestic supply. Why is that? How about we rectify that problem then? It would be possible for American oil companies to develop ANWR, play a far bigger role in international markets, AND deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, all the while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. It seems to me that this would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies instead of our own.

To Blah Blah wrote on Jul 3, 2008 3:44 PM:Please read Reardon's post at 1:28. Reardon is a 26 year veteran, and did not post anything to the detriment of veterans.

Roger wrote on Jul 3, 2008 3:52 PM:Still curious how "MarineGunner" at 3:18 PM figures the oil companies are going to "...deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price..." by increasing the global supply of oil by less than 1%?

I don't want another chorus of "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy".

I want an explanation.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:20 PM:Reardon, Don't worry those of us who know your posts were not fooled. Another case of (too) libral diplomacy. The fact of the matter with oil is we must resolve the market issues first, then allocate our resources appropriately. I'm not buying "drill now," with the current cast of characters controlling the game. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Regards, C-1.

Freitag wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:21 PM:Pro-drilling vs No drilling. Republicans vs Democrats. Environmentalists vs oil companies. All this bickering amongst ourselves while a few days ago the crown prince of Saudi Arabia laughs at us and tells us to get used to high oil prices.

Ladies and gentlemen. We have no one to blame but ourselves becuase we alone have painted ourselves into a corner, especially in southern california. A much larger mass transit system should of been created decades ago here. Instead, like a drug addict who depends on drugs, we depend on the oil to quench the thirst of our oil consuming motor vehicles and now must pay the extortion prices set by the middle east nations. Our freeways are becoming more congested every year.

While I drive 55 mph on the highway or interstate to conserve expensive fuel, other motorists roar by me at 80 mph plus in their motor vehicles. Several weeks ago I was driving 35 mph in a 45 mph zone in the far right lane of a main road near my home to conserve my fuel. A young man roared up from behind me in a car and had to brake to slow down due to my speed. I could tell that he was not thrilled that I was slowing down his progress, even though there were two more lanes to the left of me that he could of used to easily drive around and past me. We came up to a freeway and I stopped for a red light. The young man behind me entered the on-ramp beside me and then stopped, where he looked at me and said words to me which are not printable here. He then hit the afterburners and took off.

While I walk or bike to the nearby shopping center, I see some of my neighbors driving their gas guzzling cars to get a bag of potato chips. Try walking or riding a bike. Try taking a bus or train. I know a person who rides the Metrolink train from Lancaster ( in northern Los Angeles county ) to Oceanside for under twelve dollars one way. Far cheaper than fuel and wear and tear on a car. Speaking of trains, Amtrak, Metrolink, etc. should of had their engines running by electricity instead of diesel fuel. They too are hostages to the oil companies, which is why Metrolink will be raising prices five percent soon due to expensive diesel fuel.

Just my thoughts...

Albert wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:48 PM:There are a lot of untapped sources of oil in this country besides what is offshore here. If we start pumping in one place and driving smarter, the prices will drop faster than what we drill and pump directly dictates.

Those that export to us will sell cheaper because they don't want us become self reliant.

I like the way you use the 1% to diminish the value of producing for ourselves. That’s 1% of the world’s supply yes, but it’s a larger percent of the USA’s supply. Figure it out.

Karl wrote on Jul 3, 2008 4:56 PM:Randy
[-] wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:27 AM:

I'd love to see how you stand up to the biased scrutiny like yours. What a boob. "Oceanside's Rocky Chavez's first act as Mayor: approve surrounding the pier with offshore oil rigs!" Give us one solid reason to believe your statement, just one. I didn't think so.

I don't know Rocky or his politics except for the blogs here. You Randy are one to fill a story with myths instead of facts. Now go back to moveon.org and recite the answer that George Soros wants you to. Good little lefist, pat, pat.

You are a good little minnion Randy.

To Ignorance wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:02 PM:electric cars don't charge themselves! You plug them into the wall and that electricity was produced primarily by coal or oil. Since the enviros hate the nukes we are now far behind nearly every other contry in nuclear energy production, having not built a nuclear plant in over 30 years.

As for those who say that drilling now won't lower the price of oil and gasoline, you need to take a global economic class! Simply agreeing to open up the potential supply from local sources will have an immediate responce of lowering the world oil prices. Also, those who claim oil drilling rigs and ships are all currently tied up on other projects... you forget that during WWI we had ship yards that produced a complete ship ready for deployment in 35 days! If the demand for more drill rigs jumped up due to the opening of the local US oil deposits there would be new drill rigs and ships in the areas within 6 months time, and with the depth of the CA off-shore oil deposits being what they are those rigs would have the deposits tapped within 3 months time. So, you can be assured that any approval to drill would start prdcing new supply within one year! That is enough to scare nearly every speculator into dumping their bids on the world oil prices right now today! Furthermore, had the enviros not blocked ANWR 12 years ago (and back then too they claimed it would be 10 years before any oil would be flowing) we'd have been seeing the oil flowing two yeras ago and we would not be having these huge spikes in oil prices today.

Finally, I could have sworn the aregument against the Gulf War was that it was all about oil and getting hold of teh Iraq oil fields for oursleves. If this were true, then why are we not getting low prices from all that oil in Iraq? It ain't Bush's Buddies that are getting rich off that oil! It's the local Middle Eastern Countries, many of whom are supporting groups that would love to see the US become another of their future acquasitions. So, Yes, we should become energy independant. And YES, we need to seek alternative fuel sources. But, between now and the time in which such alternatives become available we need to do something to keep our economy stable enough so that our briliant minds can focus on developing those alternatives. Remember, if too many people find themsleves in the soup lines there aren't enough people left to do the research to develop those new technologies! You need energy to bake your cake before you can eat that cake. Otherwise you will find yourslef simply eating dirt, as not even the grain will be grown without the energy from oil!

Get Real wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:08 PM:Quakes and oil don't mix? How about no oil, no economy.

To Freitag wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:09 PM:Geographically speaking most of So. CA is not structured for mass transit. And, for any sudh system to have worked would have required forward thinnking some 75 years ago (or at least 50 years ago). Trying to fix the problem now is like trying to put the baby back after it is born! We have a vast population spread across an even greater area (San Diego County is larger than New Jersey and Delaware combined), and so we need toher solutions: mass transit wont work! Trying an 18th century solution for a 21st cerntury problem is crazy (trains balanced on two metal rails?!?). We have the information highway and no real reason to ovoid using the telecuter solution. But, the business culture need to change first. So, stop trying to sue anchient history to solve your future problems and find a technologically sound solution that will allow the country to continue to move forward!

Concerned One wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:24 PM:LA and OC used to have great transit system in the '40s and '50s. You could take the Red Cars anywhere so I was told by my parents. The urban legend is Goodyear, Firestone and Signal Oil bought them all up and closed them down so they could sell tires and gas. I believe there's a little truth to that, but like Fretaig said, it's all our fault. We got ourselves into this mess and the only thing we can do as individuals is drive less, drive slower and walk more. Big brother is not going to help. Regards, C-1.

hardtack wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:07 PM:Concerned One: Give the producers and consumers (which includes “environmentalists”) a free market (i.e. the freedom to work things out among themselves with their own shopping dollars) while relegating the “cast of characters controlling the game” to the trash heap of history, and that is about as close to utopia as you are ever going to get. In my opinion, of course.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:14 PM:I posted an explanation but it appears to have gotten censored for some reason. Not real sure why it would have been. However I am not going to re-type all of what I stated. Sorry Roger.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 3, 2008 6:56 PM:On 2nd thought, I will retype my thoughts. I just can't allow the propagation of false information... So, the question is where do you get your 1% or less figure?

It is a fact that we have been barred by law from developing the large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and our own state of California, the enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could also go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them.

That is my explanation. I would like it if you could refute this and to show proof of your 1%(or less) figure of how much we can contribute to the global market.

percent wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:40 PM:According to National Geographic (June 2004), the US without ANWR is producing about 16% of the world's oil and has about 10% of the known reserves (but that only counts the reserves that are legally allowed to be tapped). When you add the untapped reserves the US could raise their reserves to around 15% of the world's reserves (again, not counting ANWR). So, tapping all known reserves in the US including ANWR would increase supply quite a bit more than 1%. Interestingly NG showed that at the current rate of declining new production of wells, the world would reach peak production in 2006 and thus prices would rise from then on. But, at the rate of increased consumption of the known reserves (again which do not include those that are off limits, ANWR, and many new discoveries since 2004) the predicted end of useful production of oil was sometime around 2060. So, if we were to increase the tapping of the many known reserves, including those currently off limits, ANWR, and the many new finds since 2004, it is quite likely that the world oil prices would drop as the production rose. Problem is that Governments tend to control most oil in the world, and since the majority of the world's economy runs on oil, these very same governments are using oil to manipulate the economies of the world. Yes, oil has become the new weapon of choice among the countries that desire to gain control of populations around the world. So, the US must do a couple of things if it wishes to survive this new threat:
1. Tap its reserves including all known sources so as to free up the economy from those who wish to squeeze Americans for every penny they have.
2. Encourage research and development of alternative fuels.
3. Build Nuclear Power plants to provide electricity that can be used to power America's economic engine, while freeing up the oil for the many products dependent upon that material.
4. Get the Government out of the oil business and turn it all over to the free market and allow the prices of American oil to find their own level totally off the world market.

PortlanDave wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:51 PM:Freitag: Part of it is that people are stupid. It doesn't help anything. I get honked at regularly for decelerating towards red lights. (Higher speed when it goes green means high MPG for the driver.)

In San Diego, I'd have been scared of being shot. I'm glad I moved, but I see enough bad drivers here in Portland OR every summer... Go figure, they mostly have CA plates.

Mike S. wrote on Jul 4, 2008 12:23 AM:I'm an envirowhacko but I don't see major problems with oil rigs off the coast--there's a chance of something dire happening and causing a spill, and that would be too bad. Nothing at all bad compared to changing the Earth's climate. I know a lot of you don't think that's going to happen, that it's all some lie cooked up by envirofascists to ruin your weekend, but I've been studying the issue since 1984, hoping that some negative cloud feedback would become evident, hoping that the worst would be avoided. But global climate change looks more and more certain all the time. In 1984 there was hardly any evidence for actual warming--it was just a pretty interesting prediction. Now there's plenty of evidence that it's happening.

Before you write a response saying that Global Warming is just Al Gore's private nightmare, get a hold of Spencer Weart's book, The Discovery of Global Warming, a history of the more than 100 year old idea that carbon dioxide levels can change climate.

The worst thing about oil rigs is not that there might be a spill, but that it is just making it easier for us to put too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

To Mike S. wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:54 AM:Ice requires cold, right? So, if the Earth is warming then ice should be melting, right? And we are talking about GLOBAL warming,right? So, if theEarth is wariming globally, then the ice should be melting globally, right? So, please explain why the southern ice shelf last year hit a 100 year high for total ice area! Also, please note that it is currently on track to break that record this year!!!
Also, about a week ago a news report came out stating that the northern ice shelf could totally melt away for the first time in human history. But, here too that is a false tale. There are Chineese records showing they had sailed the northern pole and there are also signs that indicate the Vikings did so as well. Finally, the current rate of melt on the northern ice sheet is about 1 Million Square Kilometers behind its melt point of last year, and last year it did hit a 30 year reacord for melt. So, how is it to accelerate in the next two months to beat last year's record when the solar radiation levels (sun spot activity), have declined?
By the way, as temperatures rise the ocean degasses, releasing CO2. SO, please answer that question asked by Dr. Dave Keeling (Dr. C02 and father of Global Warming), "which came first, the rise in CO2 or the warming?"

Mike S. wrote on Jul 4, 2008 3:19 PM:You can take a few facts, and a few unsupported claims (like the Chinese sailing to the North Pole) and make an argument out of it, but it won't convince me, or anyone else who looks at all of the data. There may in fact be ice growth in some places due to shifting precipitation patterns--the Antarctic "desert" is in fact getting wetter. Maybe there won't be as much north polar melt this year as last, but some year-to-year random variation is normal and expected. It's like concluding the tide is coming in because this wave reached higher on the beach than the last. (I tried that sort of prediction as a kid, and was wrong about half the time--which is what you'd expect for a random guess.)

As for which came first, the CO2 or the warming, it is pretty well established through multiple lines of data that the CO2 came first. In fact the ocean has been absorbing much of the excess CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which is evident in the facts that the pH of the ocean is decreasing (CO2 acts as an acid in water) and that the atmospheric CO2 rise is less than predicted by the increase in CO2 production. One of the most worrisome aspects of the problem is that the ocean's capacity for further absorption of CO2 is diminishing, so that the atmospheric rise of CO2 may accelerate.

To Mike wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:43 AM:OK, but if the CO2 production is manmade, then since CO2 is made from one Carbon and two Oxygens we should see a corresponding decrease in the atmospheric O2 that is directly relate to the rise in CO2. In fact, if the Ocean is absorbing the CO2, then the decline in O2 should actually be greater than the rise in CO2. The problem here is that Dr. Ralph Keeling (Dave's son) of SIO does not find the O2 to be falling anywhere near as fast as the CO2 is rising. Furthermore, if we go back to the late 1800's we find John Muir having carefully mapped a ten year decline of Glaciers in Glacier Bay that took a bay totally covered with ice to fully exposed. However, the production of CO2 back then was nowhere near that of today. So, why the huge melt??? Additionally, as for the Antarctic, I was not talking about the increase in snow (precipitation) I was talking about the ice sheet area. That requires the temperature of the surrounding air mass to be low enough to allow the Ocean to freeze. Since we are currently seeing record freezes on the southern ocean that would require significant cooling of the atmosphere. And, when you add in ocean circulation you will realize that it would also require a overall cooling of the southern hemisphere.
Now if you want to discount histories of other civilizations and only claim that Western cavitations have any real knowledge of world history, then you can go ahead and say the Chinese history of sailing the North Pole is false. But, you will have a difficult time dealing with the Chinese people on that one, and there are quite a few of them the last time I checked, and they seem to be a major part of the reason why we are seeing the rise in oil prices too. A force to be reckoned with? But I digress. Back to Global warming and cooling: Solar energy is the primary heat source for the Earth. The sun spot cycle that just past was one of the most active in recent history, producing significant levels of energy that translates into heat on Earth. Interestingly enough our current position in the Milankovitch cycles places the Northern Hemisphere in a position to receive the greatest impact of that solar energy, while at the same time we are entering a cooling cycle that will have the effects we are seeing in the south. So, now that the solar activity is falling, we will once again see the slow, but steady cooling of the northern hemisphere. So, no I'm not simply trying to look at a few select facts (like you) and making a claim about what is happening. Rather, I'm looking at the big picture of millions of years of history and attempting to relate them to what we are seeing today. As for your tide comment: if you understand tides then you understand cycles caused by astronomical forces that are far greater than those caused by man. Yes, if a large ship goes by just off shore you may see a wave come along that will push the water higher on the beach (manmade) but the astronomical forces that move the tides will ultimately return the levels to their normal state. So, although we may see an insignificant impact from man concerning the atmosphere of the Earth, the astronomical powers will ultimately return the earth to normal. Man is not a great as the powers that determine weather and atmosphere upon Earth, even if man's ego is so large as to think he can control it. If man were really so powerful, then Katrina could have been stopped before it hit land, and the earth quakes mentioned in this article could be stopped before they caused any problems for drilling. But, man is not that powerful, and will probably never be!

ALL the data wrote on Jul 5, 2008 9:58 AM:Mike, are you looking at the data from 1978 forward or 1956 forward, or 1900 forward, or 900 forward, or 1200 BCE forward, or 10,000 BCE forward, or .... Exactly what do you mean by looking at ALL the data? And, are you looking at Milankovitch cycles, the solar cycles, the volcanic activity under the North Sea (yes, there has been a large amount of volcanic activity under the northern sea taking place over the last 4 years that has been warming the waters in that region), the heat transport system of the oceans, the pollutants of local waters caused by agriculture and industry that increases the PH of the oceans, the effects of solar radiation on the PH of the oceans, etc.? Again, what do you mean by looking at ALL the Data? If funding were not tied to political agendas we scientists could do some real science. But, since we are forced to tie everything to Global Warming to get our funding, and basically forced to spin our conclusions toward supporting the current Global Warming beliefs in order to assure future funding, real science is being seriously hurt by the infusion of all this pseudo science currently supporting Global Warming. It's all about Economics and world power. NOT Science, and NOT Global Warming!!! Now, try being a real man and join with those of us who are willing to jeopardize our careers to do some real science! Our data is being produced and published, but we have a big fight on our hands because of people like you how continue to buy into the political tripe of those wanting world dominance.

Mike S. wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:28 PM:Do the oil companies pay you by the word? Do they deduct for paragraph breaks? Because it would be easier to refute your miscellaneous arguments if they were better organized.

I am not in the least bit disturbed by the failure of Keelings O2 loss curve to be the exact stoichiometric reflection of the CO2 increase curve. Differential solubility of gases, other processes that produce and consume oxygen, and the differences in oxygen fate depending on whether the CO2 is taken up by oceans or terrestial ecosystems will all conspire to make the oxygen curve different than the CO2 curve.

John Muir's data on Glacier Bay is, once again, a local, temporary fluctuation. In isolation it does nothing to refute the hypothesis of current global warming. Likewise with the Antarctic data. Maybe ocean currents are changing to make a local cooling of ocean waters. Local is not global; from the very beginning of climate change science, scientists have been cautioning against overinterpretation of local events.

You have obviously completely misinterpreted what I was saying about predicting tides based on waves. Wave height fluctuates even in the absence of boats--the point was that short term fluctuations cannot be used to predict long-term trends. You have to average out the water level over many wave cycles, or average the climate over many years, to see the trends.

It is true that man cannot control nature, but it is not true that he cannot affect it. Do you not believe that man has made some species extinct?

It is true that sunspot activity can account for some of the global temperature fluctuations that have been observed in the past century, but they can't account for all the increase. Look at the charts here: ...

chrgrbltz wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:47 PM:..."is raising the specter that a powerful earthquake might trigger an oil spill on the order of the 1969 Santa Barbara disaster"...Not quite true, actually,the S.B. leak was do to "Human Error" on ONE rig, it will be incrumentally far-worse should the long expected temblor occur.1)There are usually more than one platform(s) in any given drilling region.2)As an industry standard practice all oil platforms rarely exist beyond each others "Line-of-Site" beyond the oceanic horizon line(32 miles to be exact).3)The platforms will be near to last in terms of rescue, salvage & damage control.Thus w/increased density in the amount of rigs, unless the EPI-center is very far away, the chances of long term constant oil flow from the base-spout of the drill holes are enormously high.The likelihood of any sort of quick-response by civil authorities or Corp. back-up crews would be long delayed & slow coming.Thus the wells would hemmorage unheededly at a high rate of psi.
The damage could and probaly will be damned-near permanent,beyond any normal clean-up effort,Superfund hazmat earth-clearing would costs running-up to astronomical proportions. And we've all witnessed Exxon's stonewalling the Exxon-Valdiz debacle and to pay-up for it's lack of responsibility, do you want that here to?!

Thomas wrote on Jul 5, 2008 2:50 PM:The Sky Is Falling ! (again)
The writer of the article appears to be another one of my new "Most Hated People" --- An Environmentalist.

Thirty years ago we got "tar" on our feet from wading and swimming at Mission Beach. The oil came out of the sea botttom off the coast. There were underwater movies on TV of it issueing from the earth. Drilling was not involved

The subject of your article is that of a liberal favorite: "The Sky Is Falling" theme that goes with Global Warming. All of these things reveal that Democrats, who are paid by the donations of environmental groups, are willing to destroy the U.S.A. in order to cover for the The Environmentalists real agenda, which appears to be Anti-Capitalism.

I have also noticed that The Environmentalists have lately changed their minimum standard from "Clean Enough Environment" to that of "Perfectly Clean Environment". Since that is unatainable, Environmental Rules are expected to remain as they are.

Your article previews the likelihood that "there might be an earthquake" will be used as the excuse to prohibit any offshore Southern California oil drilling because, what is really wanted, is a perfect coastal environment without the possibility of any earthquake-caused oil spills.

I am now an "Anti Environmentalist", since Environment, along with flora and fauna, are all considered to be far more important than people.

Today's chaos in the U.S. energy sector is directly caused by Democrats' enforcement of the anti-capitalists environmental goals. (No, it is NOT all caused by the "Speculators)

This results in a lowering of my personal life style -- exactly what The Environmentalists want!! Since I am their enemy, therefore THEY are MY enemy!

I will NEVER vote for any Democrat proposal nor any candidate. What's more, I will actively oppose them!

Thomas

chrgrbltz wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:36 PM:Paul
[-] wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:53 PM:"So do hurricanes and oil don't mix." - Paul look at this statement and heed your own lack of wisdom & knowledge...Hurricanes and ALL other weather Sys. are predictable even tornadoes,(to a very high level of accuracy) and are tracked, earthquakes are NOT! Your comparing Apples to Oranges to justify your flawed simplton logic, I sincerely suggest you start realizing when to stop before your way behind.

Question for Mike wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:08 PM:Recently there was a report about an old mine found in the Scandinavian Peninsula. It seems that this mine had been covered by a Glacier for over 300 years, and only now with the Global Warming causing the Glacier to melt was this old mine rediscovered. The dating of the original mine was accomplished by carbon dating of the tools left behind by the original miners (neatly stacked as if they intended to return the next season).
This discovery poses a serious question concerning Global Warming: If this mine were covered for over 300 years, does this mean that when it was originally opened the Earth was warmer thus allowing the Glacier to have melted enough of it to be opened? What caused the Global Cooling that caused this mine to be covered by the Glacier for the past 300+ years? There are many strange things that we keep finding that refute the claims that our Earth has never been so warm as it is now, or at least not in recent history. So, why is it that these discoveries keep being ignored when evaluating the data you and others claim support Global Warming?

Mike S. wrote on Jul 5, 2008 7:30 PM:"If this mine were covered for over 300 years, does this mean that when it was originally opened the Earth was warmer thus allowing the Glacier to have melted enough of it to be opened?" The simple answer is "no." It is well known that Greenland and Northern Europe experienced a warming during the first part of the last millenium. This was a regional, not a global, effect, as can be seen from a variety of global evidence. There are scientific models that have attempted to explain this period by changes in land use across Europe. (I'd link to one scientific paper that discusses this, but it looks like they edit out all URLs.) I'm not sure we have a watertight explanation for the phenomenon yet, but it's not being "ignored" by scientists who seek to understand and predict climate.

Mike S. wrote on Jul 5, 2008 8:02 PM:Thomas, it is not possible to be for humans and against the environment. Where do we get our water from? The environment. What produces the oxygen that we breathe? The environment. What absorbs our waste products? The environment. You don't want a decrease in your quality of life--but if the environment goes to heck, so does your quality of life.

If the climate warms sufficiently to remove summertime snow caps in the Rockies and Sierras, Southern California's water supply will be imperiled. The reservoirs in our water systems hold but a fraction of the water we use; we depend upon there being a year-round source of snowmelt to keep the reservoirs filled. No more snowmelt and there goes your standard of living. Warm up the climate around Escondido and you may be fighting tropical diseases you've never heard of before. That'll shoot your standard of living, too.

I am an environmentalist--a pretty radical one at that--and I have never advocated for a "perfectly clean environment"--whatever that is. You're attacking a straw man. The difference between you and the environmentalists is not a question of what you or the environmentalists value--it is a question of whether or not you understand how changes in the environment will change your chances of maintaining your standard of living.

To Mike S. wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:08 PM:Local vs Global: So, you admit that the Northern Hemisphere has in the past seen a "local" warming. So, let us apply simply logic to the data we see concerning northern and southern ice area:

If the Earth were warming GLOBALLY, then ice in both the northern and southern hemisphere would be melting. But, we only see the significant melt happening in the north, while at the same time we actually see a slight increase in total ice area in the south during the same time period (the last 5 years). Now, why would the southern ocean freeze be slower than the northern ocean thaw? Could the depth of the oceans have something to do with it? Could the fact that the northern ocean is almost totally surrounded by land masses while the southern ocean is not, have something to do with it? You already know the answer to this is a resounding YES! A deeper ocean takes more energy to freeze than a shallow ocean takes to thaw. Also an ocean that is surrounded by deep circumpolar ocean water is exposed to the energy of waves (very strong and high waves) that make freezing more difficult. One of the primary reasons why during the ice ages there were not significant increases in the ice areas of the southern ice sheets, or at least to the same extent as seen in the north. The northern ice sheet is not subjected to these energy forces and thus can freeze more quickly. But it can also melt more quickly as well, since it is not nearly as thick. Additionally, the volcanic activity seen under the northern ocean does have an impact on the temperatures of the northern ocean and with the shallow waters can significantly impact the melt (and freeze) of the northern ice sheet. Such is not seen in the southern ocean.

By the way, you did mention something in an earlier blog concerning the precipitation levels in the Antarctic. Interestingly enough the desert you mention has in recent years seen a significant rise in the precipitation rates such that the depth of the snow pack on Antarctica is actually reaching record levels. This too would be difficult if there were a warming of the total Earth area as the snow fall would not remain. Also, the weather patterns in the Polar Regions are such that clouds tend to be driven away from and not toward the Polar Regions. Yet, the few clouds that are seen in the Antarctic region are carrying more moister than in previous years. But, at the same time the water temperature anomalies seen in the Southern Ocean are more often than not on the negative side as opposed to the positive. True, we are seeing some increases in central ocean surface temperatures, but we still as of yet don't fully understand the heat transport system of the oceans.

One item of interest in the Northern Atlantic is the Gulf Stream. It transports large amounts of warm water (and air) to the northern parts of Europe. But, as the Arctic Ocean melts, the largest area for the fresh water to mix is in the North Atlantic. Thus, as this cold fresh water works its way down further from the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf Stream is actually forced below this cold water, and thus its warming effect upon Europe (and the northern regions of the Northern hemisphere as a whole) is lost. This then causes a rapid cooling of the extreme northern hemisphere and a re-freezing of the Arctic thus allowing the Gulf Stream to once again bring warmer waters and air to northern Europe. This cycle is rather interesting, but although the thaw may only take 10 to 15 years the refreeze is theorized as being able to take as little as 5 years. But at the same time the rerouting/shutting down of the Gulf Stream is theorized to remain impacted for as many as 100 years! This is one theory concerning Ice Ages put forth by a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. His argument against Milanković is that these cycles are very slow while the evidence is strong that the freezing of the ice ages happens very fast (10 to 15 years). Thus, some other effect has to be at play. Heat Transport is one of those possibilities. So, if the Arctic is melting due to global warming, it will shut down the Heat Transport system in the North Atlantic and thus cause a rapid cooling that could plunge the northern hemisphere into another little Ice Age. Another interesting fact is that the Milanković Cycles are such that we are actually entering a cooling phase, and when you add the 11-year solar cycle to those calculations you will see that we only just peaked and are now heading into a much less active solar radiation period. So, that could well explain the fact that the northern ice sheet melt is currently as much as 3 weeks behind its melt of last year, while the southern ice sheet is actually nearly 1 month ahead of its freeze of last year. Climate Change is right, Global Warming? The evidence just does not fully support that conclusion. And manmade? That too is not well supported, except within the political and economic realm. Scientifically speaking, a real scientist never forms his or her conclusion before doing the research, and always expect the unexpected to show up. Then, when it does they go back and check again. If the result remain the same, they then go and look for another proxy to see if the same results are found. Even then, they only postulate a theory, and never claim it to be FACT!

To Mike S. wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:14 PM:Hmmm... if that waters of the oceans are warming then the rainfall will increase along such areas as southern California. We know this to be a fact as every time there is an El Nino event and our local waters warm our rainfall is significantly higher. Also, the warming of the atmosphere is not yet been shown to be in the upper regions. In fact so far we have actually seen a decline in the upper atmosphere, and even down as low as 20,000 ft we are seeing no significant increase in average air tempurature. So, although we may see melting in the local mountains due to Solar activity, we should also see increased rain and snow fall in the winter months if in fact the Pacific Ocean surface warms. The biggest problem with the water supply to Souther CA is actually due to teh Delta Smelt being ruled as more important than human life. So, since a Judge loves these stinking little fish so mcuh why doesn't he take a few home with him and start farming them in his own backyard pond?!

Exxon-Valdiz wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:33 PM:National Geographic did an interesting bit of research into the Exxon-Valdez cleanup. It seems that the areas that were steam cleaned still have large amounts of oil under the rocks. Those areas cleaned with detergents also show significant amounts of oil deposits still lodged in the sand and rocks. But, those areas where no cleanup was done at all show no sign of any spill ever taking place! Another item never mentioned concerning Exxon-Valdez is that three years after the spill there were record catches of fish in the area! Now how could that be? I though oil killed all the wildlife in the area! In reality the oil is consumed by microbes that are then eaten by plankton, which are then eaten by small fish, and then bigger fish, etc. So, this increase in biologic material in the area actually aided in improving the fishing in the region. Temporarily, but it did pick up way beyond the losses caused by then initial spill.

By the way, although we may not be able to predict Earth Quakes, we can build to withstand them. If our engineering abilities to do such did not exist, then we would not have freeway bridges, high-rise buildings, dams, and other things all around here in Southern CA. Yes, the "potential" for these items to fail during an Earth Quake still exist, but we could also be hit by an asteroid too, or a wildfire, flashflood, hurricane, tornado, or terrorists!

Anselm wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:38 AM:I'd like to thank the NCTimes for a fair and balanced story. The decision about drilling should be made on the basis of the facts, which include the advances in oil technology, both in recover and safety.

However, what people mindlessly chanting "drill, drill" have to realize is that drilling won't change California oil prices now or anytime soon. It's a world market, world supply, and offshore California is not just a drop in the bucket but a drop in the barrel.

My bottom line: maybe drill carefully, but be sure that a tax structure is in place that places risk and responsibility where it should go in the event of a problem -- that is, not on the backs of taxpayers; and have something be in it for the county and state, in the form of desperately needed revenue for local services.

To Anselm wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:24 AM:People do realize that oil is a world market or world supply and demand. Therefore, if the world demand is such that the US, highly dependant upon foreign oil, begins to drill and produce domestic oil, even if that is only 5% of the US demand, that oil will be brought to the US market place at a cost to produece of around $40/barrel. Thus, regulations put in place allowing for the re-opening of the State and Federally owned deposits can place a cap on profit and thus keep the price of that oil below $100/barrel. Even this little bit of low priced oil will have an impact on the cost of gas at hte pump. But, if the US were to open all domestic oil reserve locations currently known to have oil deposits, as well as those suspected to have oil deposits, the impact upon the world oil speculators would be significant! No sooner than the US shows SERIOUS intent to elliminate its dependance upon foreign oil, and you can be ceratin that the oil from the Middle East, brought to market at a production cost of around $5/barrel (the rest of the price we pay is all profit to foreign contries and foreign agencies controlling the oil market place) will most ceratinly go down, if for no other reason than to further ensure that the US can't afford to drill and produce their own oil, and will continue to purchase the foreign oil. We have enough KNOWN oil deposits within the US to produce 100% of our needs over the next 60 years. But are currently tapping and producing less than 20%. This has primarily been due to a combination of the cost to produce being too high and the impacts of environmentalists pushing for legislation against drilling.
We can also significantly reduce our dependance upon foreign oil within the next 5 to 10 years by building nuclear power stations as so many of our foreign allies (and enemies) have already done. Again, environmental extremists have done everything in their power to make even this simple solution near impossible.

Arctic Melt wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:30 PM:WHOI researchers found in 2007 that there had been two recent large pyroclastic eruptions under the Arctic Ice: 1999 and 2001. Interestly there is a cooresponding annomolous melt of the ice sheet in both those years. The WHOI researchers also note that these two eruptions emmitted very large amounts of CO2 that most likely added to the rising CO2 that is causing Global Warming.
So, why do we keep thinking it is oil, cars, and US citizens that are the cause of Global Warming? If there really is any such thing!