I think your question is over-simplified. Additional domestic oil production may eventually reduce the rate of increase of oil prices, but neither additional exploration or alternate energy sources are going to affect prices at the pump in the near term. The current fuel prices are a result of reduced production, a very weak dollar, and commodities speculation (the relative effect of each is the subject of much debate at the moment).

In any event, the goal should not be to reduce gasoline prices, the goal should be to reduce energy imports (which will probably require more significant price increases).

But the price at the pumps ultimately determines consumer behavior. Which brings up the question: did un-naturally low gas prices fuel the desire for the hummer market....

Not sure if the average American actively wants to reduce energy imports.

Collectively wishes for changes, but individually stays the course... We can't be spanked as a group, but, you're right, Craig58, if enough individuals feel penalized (pay the increasing price), we will demand a change.

I'm in favor of both. Drill in the ocean waters and ANWAR along with continued development of alternate energy sources.

Living here in oil country I don't see an environmental problem with drilling. It's actually a pretty clean operation and in no way is it like those old movies where oil is gushing hundreds of feet into the air and soaking everything for blocks around.
Even oil field salt water disposal sites have screens to keep out the ducks and geese.

I guess you don't believe in globle warming? The idea of high gas prices should lead us to make changes for the better, not pollute. Look at the conditions in the world, so much is wrong, can't we do our part to help make it better. Since the industrial revolution we have been polluting, sacrifies should be made by all.

No I don't believe in man-caused global warming.
Most opinions on this issue are formed by what? Time magazine articles, erroneous articles in the local paper, and a non-stop barrage of bogus TV shows coupled with political posturing.
Reporting the climate as being "normal" does not garner any attention does it? It takes moving pictures of glaciers crumbling (which by the way is what they're supposed to do), cuddly polar bears, and a million sound bites to make the point.

My guess is this is exactly how your opinions have been formed, correct?

What you should do instead of turning on the TV is do some real digging on the issue and you'll discover there is another side to this issue.
For instance, and not knowing if you're familiar with the U.N. IPCC reports or not, did you know that only a tiny handful of the 2500 "esteemed scientists" behind this report even have any climatological qualitifications? Most are economists, psychologists, etc.
Did you know there is currently a petition signed by 31,000 climate scientists stating the GW issue is overblown?
Did you know the Arctic used to be forests BEFORE it iced over?

My son is a climatologist, teaches a bit of this stuff, and actually will be addressing a world panel later this year on greenhouse gasses. He would advise you to turn off the TV, a.k.a. boob tube or idiot box, and do some behind the scenes reading on this issue. Try realclimate.org or icecap.org. for starters.

(As an addendum here, did you know that over the last 10 years the average global temps have actually decreased almost .5 a degree? Even the head of the IPCC panel recently came out and admitted to it. Why the difference you ask? Well, it's because the GISS data was being skewed by installing testing stations above A/C units, on top of buildings, etc. Add that data and the temps are up. Remove that skewed data and the temps are down. Do you want the real temps or the ones from a thermometer placed above a heat source?)

Human induced global warming belongs in the same category as evolution, in my opinion. Some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction by GW proponents: What ended the ice age? How much CO2 and particulate matter does a major volcanic eruption release into the atmosphere? How does solar activity affect earth's atmosphere? Are there any cracks in the earth's ocean floors that release super hot temperatures? What is the effect of naturally occurring wildfires on our atmosphere and are they a recent occurrence (did they occur before the present GW theory)?

The subject is very involved and I'll be honest; it's leaps and bounds over my head. I've read a number of my sons books, charts, etc. and it's mind numbing to put it mildly. What I don't understand I have him put into plain English for me and that helps; a little.

My son can answer any question on this subject and there is a simple explanation behind everything. Just a few quick points here about claims made and the reality behind it.
1. Greenland glaciers are melting due to GW. Not one word is mentioned of increased volcanic activity under earth's crust in Greenland.
2. Antarctic ice is melting and hunks are breaking off. True, BUT what is being omitted is the fact that ice is only breaking off in one area and is building up in others for a zero loss or gain.
3. CO2 levels are about 375 PPM right now. 5 million years ago it was about 3000 PPM if I remember correctly, long before any man was wandering around.
4. Recent stats show the average global temps have dropped almost .5 a degree since 1998 and all scientific data to this point shows a cooling trend over the next 30 years or so. This is one reason why you see an attempt to shunt the phrase "GW" aside and replace it with a generic "climate change" phrase.

Food for thought. Much of the temp data is provided by NASA and the GISS (Global Institute for Space Studies). Do a bit of reading on the nutcase at NASA who is behind this, Dr. James Hansen. This guy rails on and on about GW and guess what his degreed field is? Astronomy, not meteorology or climatology.
He is the guy, while drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers, is also drawing money from The Heinz Foundation (John Kerry) and Al Gore. He is also the guy who recently testified to Congress that oil company execs, utility company execs, etc should be "prosecuted for crimes against humanity" and "thrown in jail" for environmental damage.

There's a lot of stuff like this that is not reported on the TV news, go figure. If you would like I'll pose all of your questions to my son and post the Qs and As back here this weekend. He will be visiting over the 4th of July and we always have discussions on this subject anyway. Feel free to add more questions if you would like.

Excuse me if this sounds terse, I have to go pretty quickly and your items should be answered.
1. The volcanic and tetonic activity under Greenland has been going on for literally millions of years. It is cyclic, but there were periods of higher activity even as the ice formed hundreds of thousands of years ago. Under the best of most agressive models GW is orders of magnitude higher in providing the energy to melt the glaciers of Greenland than the tetonic activity. It was studied and is in most models.
2. The depth of the ice as measured by radar sensor planes and satellites is decreasing. The average temperatures are decreasing. The net ice loss is positive not net zero. This has been studied for years adnauseum. Even the hardness of the ice at various depths is lessening. I don't know where you are getting your data, but there are many sources in many counties and I know of no results that are in disagreement.
3. I don't remember any specific number for 5M years ago, so I would have to look it up. But that seems high enough to have major effects on mammals and birds. An order of magnitude in PPM in CO2 also means major adaptations for breathing.
4. Where did you get those stats? The averages have been moving up and in the last 7 years have spiked. One of the biggest issues is that the slope of the line is steeper than ever seen before, except for downward declines. I have seen no "shunting" of GW to "Climate Change". But like any area people don't always agree on the language. Trying to use socialogical data in a climate debate seems evasive also.
Food for thought. Much of the data is analyzed by scientists all over the world and most outcomes point one direction. Also, if they are wrong we wasted a few dollars. If they are right, and we do nothing, we are screwed, Like a planet that can't support but a fraction of the human life we have now. I don't know about you, but when I can I avoid risky situations. Especially ones that can kill me.

The term is TECTONIC. You lose a lot of credibilty when you throw out a technical term and can't even spell it properly. I would guess tetonic would have to do with mountains in Wyoming.

Domestic drilling would have a major impact on oil prices. Here is a rather learned article concerning expectations and pricing:
http://onl...17581.html

Having our politicians get their hands out of most economic decision would help. The weak dollar accounts for a good bit of the problem. High business taxes drive some of this, also. We need refinery capacity to go along with the increased supply. If the OPEC people think that prices are likely to fall in the future, they will be lowering prices now.

Just curious here. What is your expertise in the field? Are you a degreed climatologist?
As to where I get my info, I've stated before I get it from my son who is a climatology scientist and by reading through a number of obscure and downright mind-numb boring books and technical manuals.

Along with misspelling tectonic, socialogical is also misspelled and adnauseum should be separated with a breath of air between ad and nauseum.

My son will be here tomorrow and I'll get him to read through this but he will not get involved in an internet discussion. It's pretty pointless in his opinion so he just concentrates on the science end of things and motors on.

People who complain about misspelled words should study SHAKESPEARE, more.
Was Shakespeare an idiot or did he speak many languages, or did he have stress or brain damage?

General Grant was no dummy, either, and had a lot of trouble with his spelling!

And, many bright people have typing problems or fail to proof read their work, which is why they hire secretaries, and why I invented "Spell Check" twenty years ago.

Snobs with perfect memories should run for President, like my Grandson, or teach school!

And, DEGREES do not prove credibility. Just look at George and ME!

But, I bet you compose your comments in WORD, first, just to check your spelling and prove your social credibility, since you are unsure of your opinion!

As a matter of fact, God will alter the Earth's Orbit, if he decides Man is worth saving!

Wow... GW IS much more involved than just calculating greenhouse gasses, yes! One of the reasons for so many different types of scientists being involved is because GW is not just about climatology but rather "Earth systems" which is a collection of many different fields (my field, BTW, is astronomy but I do have a fairly extensive background, if not a degree, in climatology. Astronomy allows me to know quite a bit about solar cycles and Earth's orbit both of which have a very large NATURAL effect on the climate). I would actually be very interested in your 3000 PPM CO2 level from 5M years ago because that is one that I have not encountered before... What I do know about is the Antarctic record which extends back about 600,000 years and there are no CO2 levels that are higher than today in that record. Those records fit the solar and Earth-position cycles perfectly.... with the exception of the last 100 years or so.

All of that aside, what means more to you: the idea that GW is NOT anthropogenic or the idea that we are currently not being particularly good stewards of our planet? I do not think that there should be any of this fuss over the issue of natural vs. anthropogenic GW... the MOST IMPORTANT point is that if there is even a remote CHANCE that GW COULD be anthropogenic, should we not TRY to do better? The US used to be the most technologically advanced country in the world... now we are falling behind. The "green trend" is a really good opportunity for the country to get back up to the top of the pile both technologically and economically.

I personally do not worry about spewing oil wells in the Arctic as I know how far that technology has come with containment. What concerns me is that the cost of exploration, road building, pipeline building, fuel for all those vehicles, man-power, etc. will far outweigh the benefit of reduced cost from the oil found there. We all have to remember to look at the big picture, is all. While it might seem like a great idea to help relieve the current oil stress, I personally do not think that the results will, in any way, overcome the costs. We would do a lot more by putting that same money into US-based green alternatives.

Hello Redleader; just thought I would post back after visiting with my son and while the technical answers are mind numbing and long it can be condensed into something simple. Hope this is not too lengthy.
What ended the ice age? Basically, the sun pulses and when the pulse is large the temps climb. It's referred to as Irradiance.
How much CO2/particulates from a volcanic eruption? A lot; and at the end of this post I'll provide a graph to show you what I mean.
How does solar activity affect the atmosphere? It's the same as answer to question one above.
Are there cracks in the ocean floor, etc, etc. Yes and it does have an affect. Methane is released, it rises into the atmosphere where it is oxidized into CO2, etc. (This is also the cause of the "Bermuda Triangle problem". It's huge quantities of methane gas being released from the ocean floor; enough to flip boats and bring down aircraft. Gigantic gas bubbles if you will.)
The effect of natural wildfires and are they a recent occurrence? They have no affect at all except on a local basis (haze which contributes to holding temps down) and natural wildfires have been around for eons.

That's the short answers anyway and hope it helps.

Here's a couple of things to consider.
Did you know that these dire predictions of GW gloom and doom are based one one thing; and that one thing is computer modeling. Nothing more. My son said he works with some of these models and has found "mistakes" in them, although he does consider it "accidental" and not on purpose.
Here's the kicker. Did you know these GW models are good for an absolute maximum of 10 days at the utmost? That's it and they're only good for 10 days if everything remains the same. Does the weather remain the same? No.

Here's the chart I mentioned. Note James Hansen, one of the leading proponents of GW and not even schooled in the field, testified for Al Gore when he was in Congress 20 years ago followed by testifying again on the 20th anniversary. Look real close at those average temps when he testified and tell me where the temps have escalated. Hansen will sure not talk about it. My son has heard this guy speak in person and thinks he's either a nutcase or one of the crookedest hucksters around.
http://ice...AH20YR.JPG

As to volcanic eruptions, Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines went off in 1991 and put 17 million tons of aerosols into the atmosphere along with dropping global temps by .9 degrees F. and raising stratosphere temps by about 2 degrees due to radiation absorption. In that chart note how the spike to the right of 1988 makes a sharp drop-off. That is Mt. Pinatubo caused global cooling.

This is greatly simplified but hope it helps to understand this issue a bit. If more info is needed I will gladly try to provide it.

Progress will come making advances on all fronts: Conservation, Improved Efficiencies, New oil/gas supplies world wide, New/Increasing alternative energies, Productive expansion of existing energy supplies (Coal, Nuclear, etc.), Lifestyle changes, etc.

For the U.S., we should focus on reducing energy imports while increasing supply.

I'm for full steam ahead on all fronts!!

More drilling will reduce prices, but maybe a lot less than people think. After all no matter who does the drilling the oil will go to the highest bidder and the highest bidder may not be in the US, or whatever country you are in. No oil company is going to sell to other than the highest bidder.

That said, I am not upset with high oil prices. High oil prices encourage research and conservation. I consider both very important.

Joseph; more drilling will only reduce prices if giant, Saudi Arabian size fields were discovered, a very unlikely situation. The lag between drillling and production is at least 3-4 years. During that time, 3 million more cars will be on the road in the developed world.

Agree with you that high oil prices are necessary to wean us off our "oil addiction", as Bush pointed out, but was unwilling to do anything about.

The short term is to drill.

But in the long term we have to develop alternate energy sources. This is going to take DECADES before we can get off of oil.

Worldwide most of the remaining untapped reserves are OFFSHORE! A total of 5/7 of the earth is covered with water, so that makes sense. Russia has still great reserves to be developed in the Arctic Ocean, as has canada and the US. Brazil has just idenetiied large and very deep reserves off the Atalntic Coast. Most African reserves are offshore.

So the question is not "should we?", we must! But as Craig points out, it will not result in reduced gas prices. The spare production capacity worldwide is so slim, and the US dollar so weak that we are not in any bargaining position. Besides, it normally takes 6-8 years to bring these reserves on line.

As pointed out before, the US may be the largest consumer of coffee, but it cannot contol the price of that commodity either.

I think that there is nothing to be gained from drilling offshore and certainly not in ANWR. As everyone has correctly pointed out: it will not lower prices and will take quite a while to get everything online. It seems to me that we Americans will look at this as a reason to not pursue energy conservation or pushing for automakers to build cars w/ hybrid and other technologies. Why postpone the inevitable? There's nothing like a fire under your behind to get you in gear.