I'm a climate science skeptic

>I'm a climate science skeptic

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U
eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I hold a B. Science in environmental biology and I still know jack shit about climate change.

One thing I do know is scientists are forced to beg for handouts. It's a dirty not-so-secret secret that they are constantly begging for scraps known as grants or bursaries to continue their research.

As a result of this constant begging, their results are shonky. Their supposedly transparent research is difficult to replicate and the safeguards that historically made science great are no longer applied to research.

For these reasons and more, we should all be skeptical of scientific research - including climate science.

Having said all that, I know enough to know the climate will always be changing whether it's colder or warmer or a bit of both everywhere.

one of the best arguments ive ever seen regarding this

You lost, nigger. It's over.

saved

Well I know that time ago I enjoy some 25 degrees and now we got fucking 40. Explain that if not global warming

>The word is freezing in 10 years we will all be death
>10 years later
>oops, turns out the world it is global warming, in 10 years the ice caps will melt and we'll all be dead
>10 years later
>oops did we say global warming, we meant climate change, but trust us guys in 10 years we will all be dead, I'm super serious this time

Climate change is a corporate and political scam to funnel money into universities and energy companies, and to make sure the general population is scared enough to keep voting democrat
99% of the people who call you an idiot for being skeptical of climate change can't even explain how or why it works

>tips

no one is denying climate change
people are denying the significance of the impact on the climate from human GHG emissions

The average global temperature obviously changes naturally, take a look at the ice age
Climate change is real, human caused climate change is a scam

I just got my B.S. for climatology. My mentor is an avid trump supporter and really opened my eyes to the disgusting politics in academia, Most refuse to publish anything that weakens the hyperbolic message imposed by the media. Here's the thing though, our climate is changing. Probably not nearly as severe as it is made out to be, but even then, shouldn't we try to make the planet more comfy for us? shouldn't we take those right steps in using renewable energy? idk, I fucking hate the hyperbolic message. I wish they'd just say "look, humans are absolutely making the climate warmer and there are ways that we can lessen our impact. These steps won't stop the climate from changing, but they could make life more comfy for billions of people."

We don't caused but I'm sure as hell we accelerate the process.

>this anecdote will now get reposted every day as if its set in stone fact

This is my biggest issue with it - all the fear mongering. Yeah, no shit the climate changes but they keep saying the world is going to end and it never does. They act like we can't adapt to temperatures that ancient humans had to live with.

that's bonkers mate. I mean just a basic knowledge of chemistry is enough to know that's bonkers. CO2 and methane are proven greenhouse gases. Having more of them floating around in the atmosphere is obviously going to affect our climate. On top of that there is plenty of non-bogus and well respected research that proves this to be true. First, the natural rhythm of climate is due to the Milankovich cycles. These changes occur on the scale of tens of thousands of years. What we're seeing is happening at a decadal scale. We also have evidence of what happens when methane and CO2 levels increase. Look at the permian extinction. Now that's not to say that we face a threat of extinction, it's just to say that there is plenty of evidence that humans have increased the amount of CO2, and that rapid increases in the amounts of CO2 have influenced the climate before.

not as set in stone fact, but a perspective that is often ignored

that's assuming any real discussion is had from both sides. replies like yours make me think you aren't even receptive to this post which only makes it even more valuable

>>I'm a climate science skeptic

You mean you are a climate rationalist. FTFY.

I actually am a scientist, unlike that australian poster, and I can tell you that the "begging for grants" thing is not the issue. The issue is that your paper has to be interesting to get published, and you get grants for your next project when you get published, along with recognition and flat out cash for your person.

This is achieved with interesting titles and abstracts, but the actual paper is hard science still.
So you get titles like "how chocolate can cure cancer", but the actual study is perfectly legitimate and makes good conclusions.

So the capitalist science produces clickbait titles and abstracts (the small tl;dr that magazines publish), and good, hard science.
The problem only comes when journalists quote the title and abstract without reading the study.

FPBP.

100% this.

Making people pay five times the cost of coal or gas fueled electricity isn't making them more comfy. Many people scrape by from week to week and are hard pressed to make ends meet. Denying them access to cheap energy for political purposes is a crime against humanity.

You are full of shit, sport. It's true that humans have increased the co2 concentration, possibly almost doubling 1800 levels, but the only observable result has been a dubious .8 degree C increase, not the 2-3 degree increase predicted by assholes like you. What we have added so far is equal to 1.6 watts/sq. mtr. of column of air 12km tall. No upper atmosphere warming has been observed, no amplifying effect has been observed, and there has been no observable warming for the last 20 years though the greatest increase in co2 has been in the last two decades.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

Do you have a source for that image?

He doesn't.
He is a climate science """"skeptic"""" after all.

I've always been a skeptic ever since I went to University. The indoctrination is real.

Recent acts by the liberals just made me less trusting. The same people saying brining in millions of radicalized fighting age Muslim men will save the country. At this point, you can pretty much assume anything they say is the opposite of the truth.

Yes, learned that in 7th grade science class. It's well accepted, real science. It's the reason jungles are hot and muggy at night while deserts are cool and dry. The co2 concentration doesn't change at night, without the insulating effect of water vapor ground heat dissipates rapidly.

I am a climate rationalist. Whereas you are a climate believer. And an ignorant one if you didn't already know that 95% of earth's greenhouse effect comes from water vapor...it's part of the church of global warming's epistle. In fact it is the very reason your church changed its name from global warming to church of climate change.

no it's absolutely true that water vapor is responisble for 95% of the greenhouse effect. WHat this dufus doesn't recognize is that small changes in the other molecules have large scale implications

I absolutely agree with you here. The answer isn't over taxing dirty energy or cutting it out completely. the point is making a healthy transition and allowing third world countries to use dirty energy without burdening them until they're at a point when they can make the switch

>I am a climate rationalist

I don't know about the exact numbers, but the general idea is true.
This doesn't matter much though. We don't need to double or triple the effect to suffer, it only needs a slight push.

Chill, it will be another few thousand years before anyone (that matters) suffers from it.

No they don't. If they did all 5 IPCC models would not have overprojected the observed temperature rise. And they wouldn't have had to quit calling it global warming and start calling it climate change. The amplification theory has been blown out of the water.

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

You retard, we are already 2/3 of the way to doubling it since 1880 and have seen no statistically significant rise in avg. temp. Also, since it is apparent you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, every doubling of the co2 concentration results in only a small increase in temp. because co2 cannot trap more heat than is radiated by the earth...it quickly becomes saturated. We are at 400 now, if we increased it to 1600 we would only get about a 1.5 degree C increase. It will take us hundreds of years to get to that point.

>You retard, we are already 2/3 of the way to doubling it since 1880

Doubling the greenhouse effect?
This is absolutely false. You misread something.

Doubling the co2 concentration. It was around 270 in 1880, it's a little over 400 now, with an alleged .8 degree C avg temp rise (an rise that is at best dubious)

FPBP, Saved

I never referred that, I said water molecules in the air cause most of the greenhouse effect, and we don't need to double or triple that effect, just to tip it slightly further.

I think its obvious from my post in context of the posts I quoted. Don't be hasty to insult people.

>Admits to be a shit student
>Still makes grandiose sweeping statement about subject they are shit at
>Expects anyone to take them seriously

youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U
youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U
youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U
youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U
youtube.com/watch?v=s4hpxAZum_U

The tipping point theory is nonsense, that's why i insulted you. That tipping point is dependent on the runaway amplification effect that is a physical impossibility. The amplification theory was the whole meat and bones of dire predictions of weather disasters a hundred years from now. It has not been borne out by temp observations. And for a very good reason, even though we have increased the co2 concentration there has been no statistically significant rise in avg temp:

>Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit
>Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.
>eae.sagepub.com/content/21/8/969.abstract

Yet several fools quoted him, gave him the Sup Forums "fpbp"

You continue to post about Co2 when I am talking about greenhouse effect.
You are arguing that increased Co2 won't lead to increased greenhouse effect, not that increased greenhouse effect won't lead to climate issues for human civilization.
Either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are quoting a study that doesn't support you.

>Yet several fools quoted him, gave him the Sup Forums "fpbp"...
... and screencapped his posts to repost them, so more fools can enjoy them in the future, when they are posted as "arguments" against actual studies.
A lot of the Sup Forums inforgraphics are made like that, its kinda sad when you see it happen.

Hit submit by mistake.

>You are arguing that increased Co2 won't lead to increased greenhouse effect, not that increased greenhouse effect won't lead to climate issues for human civilization.

I am arguing no such thing, for co2 has a demonstrable greenhouse effect; I am arguing that so far any co2 greenhouse effect is indistinguishable from background noise of the slow warming since the end of the last little ice age in the late 1800s; I am arguing that based on observations so far we have no need to fear an increased greenhouse effect, which is the basis of this whole climate fraud. Of course an increased greenhouse effect would lead to issues for humans if it were great enough, but it would have to happen first and so far it has not.

>Everyone takes them seriously
FTFY

Thank you for correcting the record.

Co2 has a negligible greenhouse effect.
You are arguing that a girl crying in the ocean won't lead to the Netherlands flooding. Well yes, I agree, despite the objective effect of extra liquid in the ocean, its negligible.
However the Netherlands will flood, because the water level is rising for other reasons.

This feedback loop and tipping point scenarios are real, however they have to do with greenhouse effect, not with Co2, which influences it very little.
The greenhouse effect will over time make it there, however since we are currently in an Ice Age, there is also the natural cooling that counteracts it. I think the next phase of the Ice Age was 20000 years from now, not sure, look that up.

tl;dr the greenhouse effect tipping point is a real thing, but we won't hit it, and Co2 isn't relevant, levels are too low. Deforestation is a bigger deal if anything.

>Their supposedly transparent research is difficult to replicate
Sauce?
>safeguards that historically made science great are no longer applied to research.
Sauce?
If you'd smoked less bongs at uni and actually done research (BSc is not research) you'd realise the core of your argument is complete bullshit.

t. MEnvS

>Their supposedly transparent research is difficult to replicate
Sauce?
>safeguards that historically made science great are no longer applied to research.
Sauce?
If you'd smoked less bongs at uni and actually done research (BSc is not research) you'd realise the core of your argument is complete bullshit.

t. MEnvS

Thanks for explaining what you mean. Pardon my vile.

>>Their supposedly transparent research is difficult to replicate
>Sauce?
>>safeguards that historically made science great are no longer applied to research.
>Sauce?
>If you'd smoked less bongs at uni and actually done research (BSc is not research) you'd realise the core of your argument is complete bullshit.
>t. MEnvS

What causes the greenhouse effect if not greenhouse gasses like CO2?

>lol conservatarsd are so dum
>they dont even belevei in sciense

>>blacks are less intelligent than whites
>uhh what the fuck you racist bigot theres no such thing as race

>the only people who know science are SJWs
if you really believe that you should reconsider your life choices

Water in the atmosphere is responsible for almost all of the greenhouse effect.
Water in ice is responsible for the opposite effect, since it reflects sunlight (and warmth) away from the planet. That is the other tipping point problem, once you get too much ice, it reflects too much light, making the planet colder overall, so snow doesn't melt in summer, which means more ice forms, and so on.

So we need a specific amount of our water in ice, and a specific amount of it in the air, else we either freeze or boil.

95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. The other 5% is co2, methane, nitrogen oxide and misc trace gases.

The biggest contributor to global heat retention is water vapor.... not Carbon.

Climate alarmist models have been proven to be a gross miscalculation:

The first 20 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides 1.6°C of warming, after which the effect drops away rapidly. From the current level of 400 parts per million, each addition of 100 parts per million adds only 0.1°C of warming. By the time we have dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burned them, we may reach 600 parts per million in the atmosphere. So perhaps we might add another 0.2°C of warming over the next two centuries. That warming will be lost in the noise of natural climate variation.

Please keep in mind that in prehistoric times atmospheric Carbon levels were as high as 4,000 ppm and this carbon content lead to an explosion of life on earth.

The ideal level for plants is 1,000 ppm

Carbon Dioxide is an essential molecule for plant life as everyone knows. The higher the Carbon content in the atmosphere, the more drought resistant plants become and crop yields would increase! If the Carbon content goes below 150 ppm, all life would cease to exist on this planet

Remember when (((scientist))) said the earth was heading towards a new Ice Age?
>Pic related
Turns out thats not true.

So then it became (((global warming))) but again, that wasn't completely true.

Now it is (((climate change))) and sure, the climate does change. Its always changing, but the evidence being presented has repeatedly been proven wrong:
>19 year 'pause' on surface temperatures
>Ice caps are still growing
>Polar bears population has exploded

This user has it right. Scientist need funding, the best way for them to get funding is to continue the climate scare and ask for more (((research money))) >Oy vey, we're heading into an Ice Age goyim, we need more shekels to research a way to prevent this.
>Oy vey, Ice Age wasn't gonna happen, turns out the Earth is actually getting hotter, we're gonna be doomed without more shekels to research it.

The governments use this to their advantage too:
>You goyim better pay more taxes to prevent (((global warming)))
>You goyim should feel bad for ruining the climate and causing it to change! You need to pay a (((carbon tax))) for what you did!

Smart man

>mexican intellectuals

The journalists for pop science magazines and mass media news, who read the fundbait article name and abstract and make a report on that, without reading the actual article, are "SJWs", as in people who the circlejerk of Sup Forums disagrees with on any given topic.

Recently there was an article saying that the Dark Matter is gone in the universe, and people reposted that all over, in every scientific journal, it was in the news, etc.
In reality the article confirmed the old dark matter knowledge, except it also calculated that a universe is possible with zero dark matter, if it has zero mass and zero matter.
Well since we know out universe does have mass and matter, we know our universe must also have dark matter, so the "DARK MATTER DISAPPEARED" and "DARK MATTER THEORY DEBUNKED" news all over were stupid.

This is also the reason why we cure cancer every few months, because its in the title, to get funding, and people report without reading the study showing that there was a 0.3% success in mice or some such.

I honestly have no idea who to believe. I've completely lost faith in academia after it's refusal to discuss human biodiversity, correlation between race and IQ, and recent transsexual stuff.

Fail.

3rd world countries cannot be allowed to use the same dangerous energy sources that cause manmade global warming. That's why the countries that did use it (oil, coal) have to pay the third world countries lots and lots of money, so they can jump directly to using clean green renewables and other "safe" power sources.

If you allow the rest of the world to use these cheap but dirty and dangerous energy sources, then the developed countries have no reason to stop using them either.

you replied to the wrong guy

i'm canadian

No accepted scientist has ever said anything like that.

>i've lost faith in academia after it disagreed with me

m8....

Academia has tackled the issue, look up genetic clustering.
Don't look up race theory, thats a political concept, not a genetic one.

The correlation between "race" and IQ is hard to tackle, firstly because "race" isn't a scientific term, but a political one, and because the "races" are also distinct in culture and wealth, thus these can be used to explain away any difference.

Also look at my post for fund baiting, and READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, even if the title says "Study shows no major correlation between race and IQ". The term race probably isn't even used in the article itself, and there will be good scientific data, regardless of the sugar coating to get the thing funded and published.

Consider the following:

1. We need alternative energy sources.
2. This requires development.
3. This requires wealth.
4. Wealth requires cheap energy.

Thus follows that in order to find a way to make energy without abusing fossil fuels, we must continue burning fossil fuels until we figure it out.
Quitting now, before we have a solid replacement, will lead to too expensive energy, people spending much of their wealth on it, and a reduced development.

Science is a luxury that only gets money when everything else is satisfied, or the knife is at your throat.

slide thread

Lots of climate scientists were saying "global cooling" in the media in the sixties and seventies, and the media was reporting it with the same hyperbole they later reported global warming and then climate change. It's now popular for climate change believers to say "no peer review article ever claimed global cooling". So what, this and that professor so and so at this and that university or govt agency sure as hell was warning of the doom of global cooling. It was in the political climate that Obama's science czar co-authored Eco-Science, which oddly enough wasn't about science but about a well developed plan to institute a global authoritarian govt of technocrats. If you haven't read Eco Science you should, you will see carbon tax discussed, child credits sold on a market like carbon credits, forced sterilization and many other just plain freaky things. The political roots of this climate change fraud are very deep.

Global cooling is due in 10000-12000 years, if the global warming doesn't offset it.
It has to do with Earth's orbit around the sun, its eccentricity, snow not melting in the north pole and the ice reflecting sunlight away, not with carbon.

That is very sensible. We should make cheap energy even more available and widespread while working to develop alternative strategies. That can't be done while a political agenda is putting a stranglehold on cheap energy and attempting to gain control of alternative energies for their own profit and power. We could solve so many problems in places like Africa by helping them develop an energy infrastructure.

Say it with me... A FUCKING LEAF!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hmmm...

I was trying to point out that if your goal is to cut down on anthropomorphic effects on global warming, you cannot allow any more usage of the "dirty" energy sources. Which is one of the arguments that the 2nd and 3rd world deserve so much money from the 1st world, so they can afford very expensive alternative power sources to the cheap but dirty ones that are "problematic" to the anti-man-made global warming philosophy.

Your missing the point...

Climate change is real. But here's the real issue, the democrats refuse to support measures to solve it.

Workable solutions:
- 700 million to put cheap sulphur into the high upper atmosphere blocking sunlight and cooling the planet as needed.
- building nuclear plants to power carbon sequestration from the atmosphere.

Unworkable democrat solutions:
- get the US to sign anti-polution laws so foreign donors can build far more poluting factories in their country and give the democrats money indirectly facilitated by big banks.

Am I wrong?

>"problematic"
Spotted the SJW

Shoo!!! Your logic is a mental disorder.

I thought you were a brilliant man until this post, Tommy. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

>my dad is an environmental scientist
>we had this exact same conversation yesterday
D-dad?

Lol @ this thread. Yall are either trolling or actually retarded. Got some good chuckles m8s

And my argument is that rather that money should stay in the "first world", where it will be used to develop this more affordable alternative power, and make it cheaper.

You will find it agreeable, I think, that money used for research is more useful than money used for AIDS treatment in Africa, in a country with a 6.0 growth rate, as far as all of humanity is concerned.

And if you don't want to consider all of humanity, then the question is silly, since of course we should make as much use as possible, and nature be damned.
Nature only comes into account if we are using all of humanity, and long term planning, when discussing, and long term its nor an issue for humanity if "third worlders" suffer today. It is more important that engineers in the USA get orthopedic pillows in the office so the orbital solar panel sheets come out faster.

Democrats won't support anything they can't get rich off of. They are too cut off from nuclear power companies to get rich off them, and they do not already own companies capable of mimicking a volcanic eruption. Just like they can't get rich off of seeding the oceans with iron to cause algae blooms (which would become large carbon sinks when they die and sink to the bottom of the ocean into the mud and don't rot).

You read the titles of old articles and mock them, when they probably contained the information I mentioned.
Scientific journal articles have "clickbait" titles to get funded.
I wouldn't be surprised if an article with a title "global cooling imminent" was published, and whoever reposted it in their news article or TV show forgot to read the study and see its ten millennia in the future.

You are wrong in the first part. There simply is no evidence that the planet is warming, so there is no need to build nuclear plants to scrub carbon dioxide...maybe build nuclear plants to provide clean power to help development of alternative energy strategies that could be decentralized and power villages in agricultural areas. Coal plants with exhaust scrubbed of mercury, no2 and particulates would be just fine, a higher co2 concentration would be beneficial to agriculture and forestry.

I was describing how THEY look at it. CO2 production (and carbon in general) is considered "problematic" by them. Something to be avoided, lessened, or stopped outright.

I think everyone should be treated equal under the law, and when that happens, there is "social justice". That is, if you store classified information on your personal email server, you should do the same time as someone who didn't lock up their diary that contained information the state decided was classified. Equal treatment under the law for all is the foundation of justice, not arbitrary promoting or rewarding people based on their ethnicity, sexual plumbing, or preferred ideology.

>There simply is no evidence that the planet is warming, so there is no need to build nuclear plants to scrub carbon dioxide

There is evidence that the planet is warming, its just warming very slowly at the moment.
Regardless, we should be looking into replacing fossil fuels, because in order to extract more of them we are starting to do nasty shit (drying lakes, fake controlled earthquakes, offshore wells, etc) that are themselves hazardous to the environment and human life.
Also they are harder, thus more expensive, thus a unit of "new" fossil fuel energy costs more than it used to when we were surface mining them.

Nuclear power seems the best with the current level tech, sadly most countries aren't allowed it.
Second best is private solar panels, they are cheap enough currently, just allow and promote for people to collect their own energy, and only use the state wide circuit when they don't have anything on the tap.
This also saves money and waste from transporting and storing electricity.

I understand your reasoning, but the left will not. Because it isn't about climate justice or protecting the ecosphere, its about separating the rich sheep from their money and growing the power of the government. The global warming alarmists won't be satisfied until 6 billion humans cease to exist. The majority of the rest will be living at hunter-gatherers, as a simple gene and breeder pool for the blessed. Their will be a small, chosen elite that live just as well as today's rich. They deserve to have CO2 footprints that equal 5,000 modern westerners. Then they will be served by a larger pool of slightly blessed--- their maids, gardeners, cooks, drivers, handymen, landscapers, doctors, nurses, farmers, grocers, butchers, etc etc etc. This servant class will be kept to a minimum, so as to not upset the delicate balance of the planet, and not have sufficient numbers to rebel against their betters.

Seriously, that's the only end game possible for the global warming alarmists. Some even admit it when called on where it all is leading.

Yes right, sorry I have been up all night. I should have said no evidence of harmful c02 induced warming. I am a fan of the idea of solar panels, if they are efficient enough, decentralization of energy is a key to great personal freedom. The waste from nuclear plants could become a problem, but with developments in the technology, if it were allowed, who knows what use could be found for the waste? The thing is, we are restricting development in too many ways, and this has been going on for the better part of forty years now. We can have environmentally friendly development, and we should have it, but we can't have it with unnecessary restrictions on currently available energy supplies.

That is pretty much what we have now.