June 2, 2011

"Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come."

"So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power."

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
NYTNewYorker said...

Adorable brown swirls are forming on Al Gore.

Drew said...

This information must be suppressed, lest the entire Greenist Conspiracy fall apart! MSM to your BATTLESTATIONS!

bagoh20 said...

Does anyone expect that this or any other information would deter the anti fossil fuel religion.

chickenlittle said...

St. Steven needs to chew on that.

AllenS said...

Thank you, God.

edutcher said...

George Soros hardest hit.

WV "sogigi" How to open a conversation with Leslie Caron, as, "sogigi, have I been standing too close?".

traditionalguy said...

Yes! The only rational argument that I have heard made against using our near free and abundant hydro-carbon energy as fast as we can has been elites sniffing down their noses stating that that oil, gas, and coal are "finite resources". I have always told them they were wrong, after which they would refused to let me stay in the debate since there foundational argument was an assumption.

AJ Lynch said...

A smart president would embrace this news and proclaim "there is now no need for a big energy policy- let's move on to other issues".

Original Mike said...

"...over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources."

Wile E. Coyote would be embarrassed by the plans concocted by the renewable energy crowd.

John Lynch said...

Can we just call it a religion now?

Faith in dwindling resources and the central place of man in the universe.

We must make offerings and avoid wasting the Earth's bounty.

Blah blah blah.

windbag said...

It's faith, not facts.

DADvocate said...

The politicians liked the green conspiracy because it gave them a handy tool to usurp power and rule over the masses. Never underestimate the politicians cynical desire for power.

traditionalguy said...

This is world changing news. The history of governments has been the history of how to find and use a small fungible item that can be monetized and withheld in order to collect the taxes to pay for the military and the monuments. In world history salt was used, tobacco was used, alcohol was used and now oil is used. It HAS to be an item whose usage can be limited in order to make its sale and collection as a tax work. The Global Warmists were going for broke by charging a tax on Air. Maybe they already knew about this news.

David Smith said...

So, we're going to have to fall back on the traditional "to make the stereotype elites even richer and more powerful" meme? To limit "competition" to the Five Approved Entities in any field? To keep the rest of us with the temerity to think for ourselves in our place?

Scott M said...

Given the assumptions in the article are true;

1) End solar, wind, and biomass subsidies now. If they want to keep going, let them pay their own way.

2) Go full-metal Manhattan Project on natural gas and shale oil, creating both the jobs and national optimism that we now lack.

3) Set technology goals to improve current retrieval techniques with another round of "X-prizes" for set milestones.

4) Declare August 28th as FUCK YOU, OPEC/CHAVEZ Day and center the celebration at Titusville, Pennsylvania, culminating in a "Moons Across America" as an unbroken chain of bare asses, all pointing east, stretches from coast to coast.

5) Game Theory hardcore on what the communists will latch on to now that they've lost both the Cold War and the Warming War.

MikeR said...

I'm not a global warming alarmist, but none of this is any reason to continue conducting a massive open-ended experiment on what happens when we drastically increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere. We should continue to look for alternatives. Right now, removing the incredible regulatory barriers to nuclear power would be a big step in the right direction.

Scott M said...

This is world changing news.

Combine this news with the cold fusion strides made this past year (the US Naval research lab has been involved and it's not been debunked as far a I know) and we definitely have a game-changer.

Is wildfracking a term outside Battlestar Galactica?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Scott M.,

Not sure about the rest of the program, but I would really like to see Item 4.

wv: advolomb

Richard Dolan said...

Peter Huber's book, The Bottomless Well (2005), made the point better and earlier, using both economic and scientific analysis. And he was hardly the first. "The world is running out of X" (it makes no difference what X is) has been debunked so often and so well, it's strange that it keeps coming up. The implication from the linked article is that the natural gas recoverable by fracking is some new development. It's not, and it's hardly the only reason why the notion that "too little X" was never a serious concern.

Bob Ellison said...

The problem is people, not carbon or fossil fuels. People are the plague. Agent Smith in The Matrix said it, and most people on the left believe it.

Paul said...

Seems like a candidate who calls to eliminate all subsidies as well as promote the agenda "drill baby drill" might be on to something.

MnMark said...

Julian Simon is smiling down on this from heaven.

He's the economist who made a bet with enviro-catastrophist Paul Erhlich that commodity prices would be lower in ten years than they were at the time they made the bet. Simon won.

His arguments were the seed crystals that started my change from liberal to conservative. He said that we will never run out of natural resources because human ingenuity will always find alternatives, find ways to use them more efficiently, or find ways to locate more of them. Once again he's proven correct.

traditionalguy said...

Mike R...But if the necessary plant food CO2 has even the smallest effect on warming the planet, then we need to skyrocket the production of CO2 since we are now descending into a mini-ice age that is shortening farmer's growing seasons and causing arctic cold air blasts to increase snow packs which then cause floods to increase and set off tornadoes in the spring.

RuyDiaz said...

This is world changing news.

No. Economists have known this for as long as they have examined the problem. 'Proven reserves' are dependent on current technological ability and current market price. Any calculation along the lines of 'we'll run out of oil in X years' is inherently fallacious.

Original Mike said...

"Economists have known this for as long as they have examined the problem."

Would somebody please tell our President?

RuyDiaz said...

"The world is running out of X" (it makes no difference what X is) has been debunked so often and so well, it's strange that it keeps coming up."

It isn't strange that the fallacy keeps coming up. The fallacy is common sense while the truth is counterintuitive.

We know there is X commodity. We also know that we are consuming X at a rate of m per year. The conclusion practically writes itself.

But to understand that it shouldn't be a concern we'd have to understnad things like marginal cost, substitution, advance of scientific knowledge, and so on. The fallacy is too attractive for it to simply disappear.

Marshal said...

"Suddenly". Like we haven't known this for two decades.

Alex said...

'm not a global warming alarmist, but none of this is any reason to continue conducting a massive open-ended experiment on what happens when we drastically increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere.

Stop the hysteria. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life thrived.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Not to worry, the enviro-Nazis will find another excuse to impoverish us and turn us into slaves of the state in the name of Mother Gaia.

Snails, lizards, Delta Smelt, turtles, Spotted Owls and now sea horses.

They always say 'first kill the lawyers'. Think we need to move the enviro nuts up further on the ladder.

BJM said...

Oh Noes!

Hillbillies 1 Elites 0

Scott M said...

Hillbillies 1 Elites 0

Excuse me, Mr. Hater, but the politically-correct term is "bitter clinger".

MikeR said...

"Stop the hysteria. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life thrived." Stop the hysteria? Because "life thrived"? Kind of a low bar.

As I said, I'm not an alarmist - but I think that it is just as foolish to completely ignore the views of the majority of scientists in the field. I guess you're calling that hysteria. And it is foolish to make drastic changes in our atmosphere (or other drastic changes in the biosphere) on the assumption that nothing has gone terribly wrong yet. Were you saying the same things about the housing market in 2007?

Scott M said...

6: End the housing market.

KitaIkki said...

500hp V8 powered muscle cars in every garage while unsold $42k GovMotors Chevy Volts fill up dealer lots.

Scott M said...

7) End Government Motors.

Original Mike said...

"It isn't strange that the fallacy keeps coming up. The fallacy is common sense while the truth is counterintuitive."

I have an alternative explanation; the Greenies want us to run out of X.

MadisonMan said...

Fracking -- to extract, say, gas from Marcellus Shale formations -- is at present a very heavy consumer and polluter of water. There needs to be considerable R&D done yet on extraction techniques a la the Manhattan Project type thing suggested by ScottM.

Curious that that simple word 'water' is completely absent from the linked-to article.

Still, I'm optimistic that in, oh, 50 or 60 years my home state will be the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas production.

garage mahal said...

Only problem is ya'll are relying on notoriously elitist leftist rag for climate science info. It can't be trusted. :(

Shouting Thomas said...

The energy crisis has always been Malthusian bullshit.

jimspice said...

For me, the entire article hinges on the phrase "the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes" for which the author offers no evidence. I do not believe that statement to be accurate.

Look, if there were enough carbon based energy buried in some form some where to sustain us for a million years, we are doing ourselves a disservice by digging it up and throwing it into the mix in our atmosphere. I'd be happy to give the go ahead to burn all the fossil fuels you could ever desire, as long as a way were found to scrub the carbon, and re-sequester it deep underground.

Seeing Red said...

The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation.

"educated public"

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Y R liberals so GULLIBLE?

pssst - socialism kills, free markets feed.


DUH!

& U wonder why we flyover redneck "racist" eeevvilllll conservatives don't listen/kowtow to our "educated" betters.

"credentialed - not educated"

Scott M said...

Only problem is ya'll are relying on notoriously elitist leftist rag for climate science info. It can't be trusted.

Wrong. This info has been used as push-back against peak-oilers for a while now. Seeing in a leftist rag is just icing on the cake.

As I said upthread, Garage, assume that it is accurate. What then?

Shouting Thomas said...

Fracking -- to extract, say, gas from Marcellus Shale formations -- is at present a very heavy consumer and polluter of water.

The fracking pollution hysteria has also been revealed to be mostly bullshit.

traditionalguy said...

The scare of Peak Oil has been thrown around for 30 years. If we all knew it was ridiculous, why didn't someone say so before?

Seeing Red said...

Actually - there was a play in London recently called "The Heretic."

It was about an environmentalist finding out she was hosed.

RuyDiaz said...

Fracking -- to extract, say, gas from Marcellus Shale formations -- is at present a very heavy consumer and polluter of water.

This only means, of course, that the technique is more expensive that we'd like. The problem is cost, not lack of water.

Let's do a thought experiment. Assume that we really run out of 'easy' oil, so that the price reaches 1,000 dollars per barrel. At that price, it would pay to build desalinzation plants and pipelines, and send whatever water we need to Colorado or whatever.

It is important to understand this. Harry Reid demagogued the issue away in Colorado using the 'there is not enough water' canard.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Henry said...

@MikeR -- There is an alternative. It's called Nuclear.

To ScottM's excellent to-do list, I will add a footnote.

Today the USDA replaced the food pyramid with a food plate. Bad science joined forces with bad design. The first lady spoke.

Meanwhile the government continues to pump subsidies into the corn industry. Not only are we cursed with ethanol, but with corn syrup as well. How about campaigning against that, first lady?

Shouting Thomas said...

Here's the Malthusian hysteria cranked up to its insane endgame.

Original Mike said...

Garage - Think of it. A never ending supply of choo-choo food!

Shouting Thomas said...

Then, what sort of human trusts Salon for hard-science news? Gumphousers apparently.

Put down the crack pipe, quick yanking your pudd and listen for a minute, J...

No one here is relying on Salon. Salon is just finally conceding what any sane person knew to be reality.

Which, of course, excludes you. Now, start the fulminating, gasping, farting and burping that we expect from you...

RuyDiaz said...

The scare of Peak Oil has been thrown around for 30 years. If we all knew it was ridiculous, why didn't someone say so before?

The scaremongers are louder, and the fallacy both credible and easy to understand. A lot of people have been making the anti-Peak Oil case. It may just be that you didn't notice.

Seeing Red said...

but I think that it is just as foolish to completely ignore the views of the majority of scientists in the field.

Follow the money.

Have U ever considered the other side isn't allowed to give the alternate view? Who controls the media?

The Canadian Broadcasting System a few years ago refused to run a documentary against AGW & there R a lot of scientists who don't agree w/that religion.

Do U ever visit a counter site?


Like ICECAP?

Or NoConsensus.org?

Freeman Dyson thinks AGW is BS.

There was another physicist who, in his letter resigning from the American Physical Union, basically said he's resigning because of this - the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.

House of cards, built on false/doctored data

East Anglia should have give U a heads up.

Ohhh, if I could only link to the 10:10 No Pressure ad from England. That's the left 4 ya.

Tim Blair has it buried somewhere.

RuyDiaz said...

The ever-increasing price of crude...

The price of crude is not ever-increasing.

Fred4Pres said...

There will be problems with this source of energy too, there always is something, but it will not be insurmountable. Bjorn Lomborg, has been preaching for the chicken littles to calm down over dwindling commodities, engery supplies and global warming for years. Yes, there is small elements of truth in all the scare scenerios, but they ignore how economies adapt and how peak scenerios or catastrophic runaway results never seem to materialize. Ever.

Seeing Red said...

Canada has the water.

All we need 2 do is make them an offer they can't refuse,

Jail the enviro.........

and build the pipeline.

Seeing Red said...

, but they ignore how economies adapt and how peak scenerios or catastrophic runaway results never seem to materialize. Ever.



They don't trust human innovation.

We find a way, we always do.

LakeLevel said...

ScottM:As I said upthread, Garage, assume that it is accurate. What then?

There is no "what then". Their entire world view is built upon this bullshit. All the recycling and Prius buying and incandecent bulb bans and on and on depends on peak oil and Global Warming BS. They cannot even consider what if they are wrong. The idea literally cannot exist in their heads because of the cognative dissonance.

SMGalbraith said...

The key point in this is not that the world's supply of energy has increased but that the US's supply of it is enough for us to be energy independent. For hundreds if not thousands of years.

Again, thousands of years. Independent.

It is a travesty that we send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas (well, to Canada and Mexico chiefly) when we could be using our own resources, keeping the money here and providing jobs for Americans.

That's a scandal.

This is an issue for a Romney or whomever to seize.

Seeing Red said...

Vanity Fair did a hit piece on Freeman Dyson.


I'm positively giddy

haven't waded into the comment section


Should be very entertaining

Brains exploding.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RuyDiaz said...

"The World According to J"; Ever-Increasing Oil Prices, 1869-2009:

Graph

traditionalguy said...

Jimspice...Does your mind still see carbon dirtying pure air as a problem? That is silly. The odorless and colorless molecules called Carbon Dioxide are such a minute part of the atmosphere that doubling it would be like taking a drop of water in a lake and doubling it to two drops. And there is no glass roof covering the atmosphere where it merges into outer space. You have seen too many cartoons and comic books.

Sixty Grit said...

Anyone who believed the manbearpig was an idiot to begin with. The facts were never on his side.

They are all watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside, and their only goal was the destruction of the west.

Seeing Red said...

I think it was when Klamath Falls happened in the 90s(?), a farmer made the point in an article that when the environnnnssssssss sue,

they have the deep pockets of Uncle Sam at their disposal.

While he has to fight them on his own.


If that is true, that law, reg or preference needs to be changed.

themightypuck said...

Peak oil is scary because it means the oil is running out. Luckily we are finding new sources of energy. There is no guarantee this will always happen. The future is notoriously hard to predict. On the other hand, Peak Oil doesn't really tell us what to do other than use the resources we already have to generate growth that will hopefully find new sources of energy which we would be doing anyway.

RuyDiaz said...

Peak oil is scary...

So is Big Foot, and the Chupacabra. (*Shrugs*)

Shouting Thomas said...

So, you see J, I didn't consult Salon.

I consulted South Park, which is always right on the money.

As soon as I saw the manbearpig episode, it was settled science to me.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

traditionalguy said...

The scare of Peak Oil has been thrown around for 30 years. If we all knew it was ridiculous, why didn't someone say so before?

They have. Repeatedly. For 30 years.

Two guys stand on a street corner.

Guy A screams, "The world's gonna end!"

Guy B says, "No, it's not."

Guy A produces a big, colorful chart with a scary red line plummeting to the bottom.

Guy B spends an hour explaining economics and technological trends.

Guess which Guy ends up on the evening news more often?

garage mahal said...

Garage - Think of it. A never ending supply of choo-choo food!

That's great. Except there is no fucking train, I still have to drive to Mlke through that construction hellhole twice per month becuz my boss is cheap, and yet we allegedly have an endless supply of oil @ 4.00/gallon. Awesome.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seeing Red said...

Instapundit has a lot of bloggy goodness today!

Between that, Walter R Mead & MMcArdle........

heheheheeeee

... Part of it is the breakup of the blue social model....


“Divorce creates two new households at a lower income than the original one, forces the split up of assets and changes the nature of real estate markets. A nation with a high divorce rate, all things being equal, is a nation of worse credit risks than a nation which marries for life.”



Not to mention the social toll. Who would have thunk? Married nuclear family.

So went the black nuclear family, so is going the country.

deborah said...

ST, the first comment to you powerline link makes some interesting points:

"Mark as SpamReport as AbuseMichael P. BenardIt is a half truth for the industry -- or anyone -- to assert that fracking has been used safely for more than 60 years. The first gas well ever fractured using the current slick water fracturing technology was developed in the Barnett Shale in 1997, according to the Railroad Commission (RRC) of Texas website. (See its page dealing with "Water Use in the Barnett Shale.").

As a conservative and former gas leaseholder in Pennsylvania, who ended up fighting eminent domain for two years against a gas company backed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, I encourage caution to all those who would approach this issue based on theory versus skin-in-the-game experience. To understand the fracking issue, my wife and I have traveled from Dimock, PA (poster child of bad drilling practices), to the Barnett Shale in Texas (the icon... of hydraulic fracturing). These are not granddad's gas wells. These are heavy industrial sites.

Two thoughts:
1) If fracking is so benign, why has my research failed to identify a single gas industry executive (senior manager) in the nation who has a fracking operation on his/her property, near their home. I have contacted gas companies and industry associations -- and the answer is either "no," or there is no response. Reminds me of Obamacare when the governing class changed our health care plan but kept theirs. Gas industry execs want these operations on someone else's property but not theirs. Why? If industry had a good story to tell on this issue -- as in leadership by example -- it would be telling it.

2) The industry frequently characterizes citizen opposition as lefties and even extremists. It ignores the trampling of property rights that comes with drilling operations in the form of eminent domain for pipelines and storage reservoirs. Property rights is a fundamental, conservative principle going back to Samuel Adams. While I support the right of a property owner to lease if he chooses -- I do not have the right to refuse to lease -- not by any practical means -- as a resident of New York State thanks to "compulsory integration." In Pennsylvania, "forced pooling" is at the top of the industry's wish list. Frankly, many of the property owners I know in Pennsylvania and Texas (not to mention Wyoming and other states) are conservative and they are mad as hell at what the gas industry has done to their property, including property value, and their lives. And they have no respect for government regulators who function as cronies of the industry.

There are adverse effects to health. As a woman I know in Pennsylvania just e-mailed me (wishing a gas exec would live in her family home for a month): "He would have to use the well water to drink, cook and bath in and spend his evenings sitting on the deck until he gets the 'hydrocarbon headache.' After a few nights of headaches he can look forward to a horrid bloody nose in the middle of the night. Then have urine and blood work done once a week to see what he has been exposed to. He needs to MAN UP and live in a gas field for awhile!"

As The Dallas Morning News recently editorialized: "These concerns [air pollution, groundwater contamination, declining property values] are not overblown.... But the industry's tendency has too often been to deny, deflect and use judicial bullying to get its way.""

edutcher said...

Shout, only J knows f**k about anything.

Of course, that's all he knows about anything.

Scott M said...

Luckily we are finding new sources of energy. There is no guarantee this will always happen.

We've got enough resources and brainpower on this mudball to keep us well into a time when we'll be cloudscooping He3 from various places around the solar system, Jupitar not the least.

Trooper York said...

If only we could harness the power of Congressman Weiner's weiner.

Then all would be well.

PfMoen said...

I believe "peak oil"was first bandied about during the 1920's.
Wyoming also has enough coal for about 400 years of USA usage.

Seeing Red said...

We don't have to blog about it, all we have to do is link & let them read for themselves.

Original Mike said...

Your cheap boss ain't gonna pop for whatever the ticket price was for the choo-choo when he can get you there and back for (140 miles/20 mpg)* $4/gall = $28.

Scott M said...

Luckily we are finding new sources of energy. There is no guarantee this will always happen.

Apparently we're not, Jolly, as you deem to keep lowering yourself to our level and keep coming around.

Did you work your chest today? Got to keep that bench press max up around 400 like you claimed, right?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@garage

"...and yet we allegedly have an endless supply of oil @ 4.00/gallon. Awesome."

Master of the strawman.

Of course we all know you wouldn't give a rip about 'oil supply' if it were free.

If you weren't so desperate to hold on to the tit of government you just might see the bigger picture garage.

RuyDiaz said...

If only we could harness the power of Congressman Weiner's weiner.

Then all would be well.


Yes. Nanotechnology is a powerful force.

Chip Ahoy said...

That was an interesting article.

Did you read the comments over there?

Brennan said...

Wait, Joan Walsh cleared that piece?

RuyDiaz said...

That was an interesting article.

Did you read the comments over there?


No, but I suggest a drinking game. Everytime you read 'righ-wing propaganda', take a shot.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Lets not forget about the abundance of hydrogen. When hydrogen becomes a viable option (not necessarily a substitute) for petroleum-based energy, I think that will be a real sea-change.

A great example of a hydrogen-helium engine; the sun.

The whole wind power thing is such a MCF, an example of starting a project without planning. Much energy indeed has been wasted there. Right up there with ethanol from corn.

Really, when you look at the supposed 'ancient' internal combustion engine, great strides have been made. Pretty amazing, how a single gallon of gas can move a 5000 lb vehicle 20 miles or better, even more with diesel.

The environmental lobby (a faith-based religion) has indeed cost us dearly.

garage mahal said...

Your cheap boss ain't gonna pop for whatever the ticket price was for the choo-choo when he can get you there and back for (140 miles/20 mpg)* $4/gall = $28.

You're forgetting being stuck in traffic for hours, cost for parking, the billions spent on that highway, and the overall of clusterfuck misery of flying. Last month I had two canceled flights from Delta - and they had to drive us from Chattanooga to Atlanta in a shuttle bus. I would have been better off driving. Or, better yet, oh nevermind....

Scott M said...

Just read through the first four pages of comments. What's the first stage of grief again?

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Salamandyr said...

One problem with this article...it's Salon.

Maguro said...

Last month I had two canceled flights from Delta - and they had to drive us from Chattanooga to Atlanta in a shuttle bus. I would have been better off driving. Or, better yet, oh nevermind....

Yes, sometimes transportation plans go awry. But for some reason, the choo-choos will always run on time, right?

traditionalguy said...

Ruy...LOL. Nano technology indeed. You could get Weiner fracked for that one.

Scott M said...

Show me where I quoted, Jolly, then get back to your incline presses. While I highly doubt you're chronologically a child, your behavior continues to strain that belief.

ricpic said...

Stin Ki Win Di reports that there's "vast gas" in China.

RuyDiaz said...

I was wrong about assuming the 'right-wing propaganda' angle in the comments over there. They are high in 'oil-industry propaganda', in several variations.

Original Mike said...

"and they had to drive us from Chattanooga to Atlanta in a shuttle bus. I would have been better off driving. Or, better yet, oh nevermind...."

See, here's the thing about a train. It only goes one place. It can't be retasked. For example, no matter how fast it is, a Madison-to-Milwaukee train will never get you to Atlanta.

RuyDiaz said...

Ruy...LOL. Nano technology indeed. You could get Weiner fracked for that one.

Anthony and his nanobot can do wonders.

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I'd give it more credence if he was a geologist of chemical engineer.

Is that akin to Sir Lister Of Smeg?

LarsPorsena said...

I think I will check my enthusiasm until I know the bona fides of the author. He could be the conservative equivalent of the GW apostles who are 'degreed' in sociology,anthropology, poli sci lit-crit, etc.

I'd give it more credence if he was a geologist or chemical engineer.

TWM said...

"Does anyone expect that this or any other information would deter the anti fossil fuel religion."

It's not just anti-fossil, it's anti-anything that produces power. Wind turbines? Nope they hurt birds. Solar panels in California? Nope, some fricken endangered turtle or something would be hurt.

Every time some innovator comes up with a new energy source environmentalists sue to stop it.

Progressive? Not so much.

MikeR said...

Seeing Red:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf
As I said, the majority of scientists in the field agree with the consensus. I can't consider it sensible to ignore them.
Now before you respond, note: Not ignoring someone is not the same as uncritically accepting their words. I did not say to accept whatever they say. I say, it's foolish to ignore them, which is what you are suggesting.

Also worth noting from the survey that I linked, approximately a sixth of climate scientists disagree with the consensus on various critical points. Don't believe the 97% nonsense that the other side tries to claim - that isn't true either. This is an active field, with a lot of important stuff not worked out yet.

Original Mike said...

"It's not just anti-fossil, it's anti-anything that produces power."

They're trying to stop a solar plant in the Mojave desert because it will "ruin" the desert. If you can't put a solar power planr in the freakin' desert, where can you put one?

Joan said...

The comments over there amounted to a chorus of ear-plugged children chanting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

It was painful.

Geoff Matthews said...

Read the comments. Salon's readers are outraged over the blasphemy.
Seriously. A Jihadist is only slightly more outraged over a drawing of Muhammad.

garage mahal said...

For example, no matter how fast it is, a Madison-to-Milwaukee train will never get you to Atlanta.

If it were just a Madison-Mlke track I would agree it would be a waste of money. But you damn well it was an extension of a highly popular service that would connect it to the Hiawatha and the entire Amtrak system. Which, you and I will be paying hundreds of millions in upgrades to the Hiawatha, now, because fuckhead turned down the grant from the feds.

Turns down 850 million, gets denied 200 million. But I'm sure that still makes sense to some people.

David said...

No surprise here. Facts already known.

The peak oil crowd are a bunch of pipsqueaks who are terrified of the future.

Yet they almost carried the day.

(PS: Someone tell Obama's new Commerce Secretary about this.)

RuyDiaz said...

The comments over there amounted to a chorus of ear-plugged children chanting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

It was painful.


Basically, a Commentariat of J's. Sad.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Revenant said...

We should be making an effort to move to nuclear power no matter how unlimited our fossil fuel reserves are.

It is cleaner and more reliable.

David said...

"But I'm sure that still makes sense to some people."

Makes sense to anyone who understands the persistent failure of subsidized "enterprise." Like farming, industrial enterprise needs to be sustainable.

There is nothing sustainable about huge subsidies for high speed trains that can never carry people at a profit. The Chinese have just learned this and have put the brakes on their high speed choo-choos.

RuyDiaz said...

We should be making an effort to move to nuclear power no matter how unlimited our fossil fuel reserves are.

It is cleaner and more reliable.


But it is considerably more expensive. We kind of need the wealth right now.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Original Mike said...

I propose we eliminate ALL subsidies. Can I get an "Amen"?

Seeing Red said...

Except Mike - peer reviewed.

IF they actually did the experiments instead of saying sounds good to me then we may be on to something.

& cherry-picked data - remember the tree rings...........


Whose to say the formulas they're basing their beliefs on are correct?

Numbers could have been wrong for a couple of decades or more.

Can't hide the decline.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

And it's estimated there are 6000 years of minerals on the ocean floor just waiting for smart guys to figure out how to come get them in ecologically and economically safe ways. We might be able to postpone Armageddon for a few thousand years.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/minerals-on-ocean-floor-could-provide.html

Brennan said...

One problem with this article...it's Salon.

Meh. The author is Michael Lind. Lind is what I would term a reasonable liberal that isn't trying to get elected. So you get to start with the fact that he has very little interest in lying.

Lind co-founded the New America Foundation and is previously an editor for Harpers. That Harpers. Not the Bizarre one.

Chip S. said...

Amen, Original Mike. Then there won't be any need for the Dept. of Energy, either. Win-win.

MikeR said...

Sorry, Seeing Red. If you aren't a scientist in the field, your quoting this website or that one doesn't convince me. If I'm not a scientist in the field, no one should listen to me either. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Those of us who don't read the actual research papers and work through the math and the statistics - well, our opinions are worthless. Even we should know better than to take them seriously. Science isn't like blogs. We don't have a clue, and we are swayed by whichever website whose politics we like.

Nope. I showed you a survey of the real scientists doing the research; they are the only ones whose opinions count. Obviously, Dyson's opinion counts a lot, since he studies the science. So does McIntyre's, and so does Jim Hansen's, even if you don't like him. As the survey shows, they are somewhat divided, so I will somewhat hedge my opinions. So should we all.

Original Mike said...

The sole purpose of the Dept. of Energy is to hand out subsidies, isn't it?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@original

Amen brother.

@unhinged troll

’J’

Seeing Red said...

We're most likely going into another mauder minimum.....


we want global warming, we feed people.

it's when people aren't fed - that the trouble really starts.

see the middle east.

Besides, haven't you noticed we've gone from

GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING

to MANMADE GW MANMADE GW

to

Climate change?


They've been downgrading for years.

1 of Russia's top or former top scientists has said for years this is bogus.

Misguided Climate Scientist Primed the Politicians

Honest scientific inquiry serves the single purpose of advancing human knowledge and understanding free of any bias or ulterior motivation and it is clear that promoting “human caused global warming” a full nine years after the world had already started cooling serves no such lofty purpose.

Kalmanovitch accuses a small clique of self-serving climate researchers for violating the fundamental ethics of science protocol and propagating the false science that made the Kyoto Accord the international vehicle for crimes against humanity. Listening to his arguments you cannot help but see he has a point.

So what was the root catalyst for this cataclysm? Astonishingly, you can pin a lot of it on one well-intentioned but misguided do-gooder. His name: Professor James Hansen. Hansen was NASA’s bright-eyed scientist back in 1988. The eager climate modeler appeared before a Congressional Committee and prophesized that mankind would kill the planet if it continued to burn coal and gasoline at modern industrial rates.

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.”

Hansen made unfounded and highly alarmist claims based on his computer forecasts. He predicted doomsday scenarios that panicked Congress and that wave of fear stampeded the world into believing in a non-existent crisis. Global temperatures have never rocketed as Hansen forecast. In fact all five global temperature datasets show zero net global warming over the past decade in spite of record increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (climate scientists have now grudgingly conceded no statistically significant rise in temperatures has occurred since 1998 from their doomsaying). But once the stampede was launched it caused a rush to biofuels that stripped millions of crop acreage from the world’s food basket.

But more sickening is that many have made sizeable fortunes from trumpeting a short period of warming that lasted from (1975-1998); a vast international array of speculators in wind, solar, wave and biofuels alternatives are onboard the great global warming gravy train.

Hansen’s friends in the infant science of climatology have also fed well off government grants where the ‘climate change’ industry generates tens of billions annually in this self-perpetuating Ponzi scheme that symbiotically melded the interests of speculators with climate researchers.

In effect, those great riches and shining scientific careers were together built upon exploiting a 0.6 C rise in temperatures that all but vanished in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Bruce Hayden said...

Nope. I showed you a survey of the real scientists doing the research; they are the only ones whose opinions count. Obviously, Dyson's opinion counts a lot, since he studies the science. So does McIntyre's, and so does Jim Hansen's, even if you don't like him. As the survey shows, they are somewhat divided, so I will somewhat hedge my opinions. So should we all.

I would respectfully disagree.

There are a lot of things wrong with your claim there. Part of it is that climate science is not as well developed as, say, physics or chemistry. What is the background required for such? Unfortunately, the same skill set that is useful in counting tree rings is not so useful in trying to calculate what happens with a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or in the statistical analysis required. Indeed, the problem with much of Hanson's work appears to be that he was trying to use statistics that he did not understand. And, beyond that, at least at East Anglia, their computer programming was abysmal. As a result of this programming (along with a lack of documentation of how the temperature data was manipulated), it appears that at least one, and possibly 4 or 5 of the 5 major climatic datasets are highly suspect.

So, who do you count in your survey? Is the set of people whose opinions count determined by a bunch of insiders, like, for example, what we found out was happening in climate change publications? What are their qualifications?

Chip S. said...

The sole purpose of the Dept. of Energy is to hand out subsidies, isn't it?

There's plenty of that, with a full complement of regulations, too.

Seeing Red said...

Forgot where I found this comment, but it's fairly recent:

I read somewhere that the ratio of pro-global-warming funding to anti- was 35,000 to 1. Having been a science editor back in the 70s, I know there're lots and lots of professors who are 1) grant-driven and/or 2) hard-left-leaning.
If the AGW crowd consisted of real scientists, it would have addressed and dispelled the following. In the 70s the operative climate theory was that we were just ending an unusual confluence of factors that had produced 60 years of the mildest weather since the last ice age and would be slowly returning to just what we are seeing now, namely, normal Holocene weather patterns. I haven't seen word one.
Meanwhile, true iconoclastic scientists, such as leading physicists, have said there is no way AGW holds water.

-------------

There's a paper at arvix.org by Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf Tscheuscuhner

from 2007/2009 which he refers to.

and this:

By John O’Sullivan, Canada Free Press

A top East European climatologist, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with UN global warming colleagues, jumps a sinking ship as ocean data signals a cooler climate.

Dr. Lucka Kajfez Bogataj left cold clear water between herself and her former UN shipmates by declaring that rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide probably don’t cause global temperatures to rise. The news scuppers hope for a change in fortune for the beleagured UN climate agency.

Their doomed ‘ship,’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been sailing on an ill wind ever since it was struck by that Climategate ‘torpedo’ last year.

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been translated into English. The lambast came in the publication Delo Polet (18/11/2010), translated into English as, “Inconvenient Truth.” Inside Bogataj publishes a paper entitled, “The more we know, the better.”

Rises in Levels of Carbon Dioxide follow Rises in Temperatures

Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo - and proxy methods, Dr. Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises in temperature.

The eminent Slovenian expert is also key climate change adviser to her nation’s president, Danilo Turk. Bogataj’s article, translated into English by her countryman, Miso Alkalaj, makes a startling admission:

“A detailed comparison of temperature data and the quantity of carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up first and then the concentration of carbon dioxide increased, and sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed....”

Seeing Red said...

The real question is why isn't the alternate view being heard, much less debated?

Bruce Hayden said...

As importantly as the fact that the set of those whose opinions are considered to count is questionable, the next question is, so what? So what if there were AGW due to our CO2 usage? Etc.

The reality is that even if the U.S., and maybe Europe, were to beggar themselves in order to significantly reduce their CO2 output, it wouldn't matter.

The third world, and esp. China and India, are ramping up their CO2 emissions as fast as they can. They have huge unmet demand for energy, and are not about to cut into their energy production growth to satisfy the demands of the AGW crowd. And, that massive increase in CO2 emissions by these countries is inevitably going to swamp any meager things that we may do, including twisty bulbs, electric cars, solar, wind, etc. The only thing that committing as many resources to CO2 reduction as pushed by AGW proponents will do is beggar our country or countries, esp. in comparison with those emerging countries.

Seeing Red said...

I really think some should watch the
10:10 No Pressure video.


Gillian Anderson is in it


Tim Blair's Green Dream blog at The Daily Telegraph still has it.

It's side-splitting.

Bruce Hayden said...

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.

And, of course, one of the places where those models fail miserably is in their assumption of the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2 increases. It seems vary much like the Keynesian multipliers that were being bandied about by the Democrats and their ilk to justify all that spending they engaged in when they controlled both the Presidency and both houses of Congress. One would posit a multiplier of 1.6, another 1.8, and Nancy Pelosi might top them with 2.4. Turns out, it was less than 1, which is why that massive spending, much going to government paychecks and benefits, caused a deepening of the recession, not a lessening of such.

Similar with the multiplier that is assumed in so many of those models. It appears now that the sensitivity curve of global temperature to CO2 build up curves the other way, at least at the place we are now, with a lessening sensitivity, not an increasing one (which should have been obvious, since an increasing sensitivity would require that there be a point of runaway feedback, despite the fact that we have had much higher CO2 concentrations in the past without the Earth burning up).

gadfly said...

Unbelievable! The hard-left nutcases at Salon actually wrote a piece favorable to carbon-based energy! Just think of the money to be saved by building new power plants using natural gas and coal as fuel - especially if we don't spend money on internment of CO2 and confine stack scrubbers to removing fly ash.

Now, if we can only get past the demands for upgrading infrastructure and put up with 3% unemployment and working jobs averaging over $80,000 per year.

Frack that oil!

Bruce Hayden said...

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.”

The thing that is amazing to me is that there are so many people willing to beggar our country based on such models. There is a saying in computer science - GIG) - Garbage In/Garbage Out. And, as we found with East Angia, Hanson, et al., the central players in this debate were willing to go to great extremes, including violating the law, to keep from disclosing the workings of those models, as well as how they massaged their input data. And, yes, we are supposed to dedicate trillions of dollars to the outputs of those models.

Original Mike said...

"The thing that is amazing to me is that there are so many people willing to beggar our country based on such models."

They (the general public) have no conception of the models. Neither do they have a conception of the economic consequences of drastically reducing our power generation.

Fen said...

J: The ever-increasing price of crude has nothing to with the supply being depleted, and difficulties of extracting oil??? Then, like gasoline should go back to 90s prices

How ignorant.

Here's all the J you need this month:

"Hey ____ --yr going to shut your lying yap soon, pops. Permanently. Capichay, retard? Like the rest of the teabuggers here You don't know f**k about ____, trash."

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bruce Hayden said...

1) End solar, wind, and biomass subsidies now. If they want to keep going, let them pay their own way.

As usual, Gov. Palin was out front on this one too, proposing the elimination of all energy subsidies, including those for oil exploration, but also for solar, wind, etc.

Good for the country, but maybe not so good for Government Motors which has to manufacture all those money losing Volts. Of course, the federal government is their biggest customer, over all, and, in particular, for those Volts.

RuyDiaz said...

(quite above the average A-tard's learning curve, however)

So, I take it you found it incomprehensible.

Jose_K said...

Julien Simon said that years ago.mechani}cally there will be less oil, economically will be more and more. Cars will use less oil or will use another energy source. people will use less the car and more internet ...
Anyway as Yamani said: the Stone Age did not end because the stones were depleted.Before 2050 oil will be displaced for another energy source,wich? nobody can know
Envoromentalist were wrong like Jevons was when he predicted that people would die in 1900 of cold for lack of coal

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Crack Emcee said...

SURPRISE!!!!!

(I've been taking shit from people, for saying this, for years.)

And, now, I'll ask again:

Is anybody going to prison for wasting our time, resources, and money?

Bruce Hayden said...

They (the general public) have no conception of the models. Neither do they have a conception of the economic consequences of drastically reducing our power generation.

Rather, I think that they mostly think that this AGW "science" is based on the sort of hard science you find in physics and chemistry, and not on models that have numerous problems.

One problem that hasn't helped is that many of the formal articles "finding" AGW come with numerous provisos and limitations. Often, the articles will specifically call out those limitations, provisos, etc.

But, then, you have the AlGores of the world interpreting these articles. Keep in mind that AlGore's total scientific background at the time that this was all breaking was two undergraduate bone-head science courses. His training instead was as a journalist. He, along with many of the proponents of man caused AGW, didn't understand the limitations on the models, and so ignored them.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seeing Red said...

I mean, when NASA tells us we can't factor in the sun as to global warming, that should have been a red flag.

Wasn't that Hansen as well?

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seeing Red said...

Hey Ruy whoreson--don't open yr yap, trash. You're not qualified to speak on environ. issues, retard. You're just another bag of teabug shit. Excrement. Capichay? heh heh.



We're not - we're quoting experts.

LOLOLOLOL

U gotta problem w/their work, take it up w/them.

Now the AGW believers, that's some excrement.

Fred4Pres said...

Trooper York said...
If only we could harness the power of Congressman Weiner's weiner.

Then all would be well.

6/2/11 3:57 PM


And with his mojo oosing from that yearbook photo on his facebook account (the one with the hot jewfro), I am sure he knows how to use it. Holy Baloney, here comes Congressman Weiner!

bagoh20 said...

If this news does not make you happy, then you are a miserable whiny loser who would rather see mass suffering than admit you were wrong.

How cool of you.

RuyDiaz said...

From the "Let's Keep the Faith", response:

but the unprecedented frequency of extreme weather events that we are already witnessing all across our planet

I take it he has the statistical analysis to show that there is an 'unprecedent frequency of extreme weather events' he speaks of. I'm sure, sure of it.

Seeing Red said...

Much like the BBC & the pols whitewashed East Anglia, but I can't find my link to that article, the U of Penn covered for Michael Mann..........


New study affirms natural climate change

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted January 31, 2011

It's nice when people validate your work. Fred Singer and I—co-authors of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years—are currently basking in the glow of a new paper that affirms the earth's long, moderate, natural climate cycle. The study is by Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India's Space Research Organization. He says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world's recent global warming.

Dr. Rao says the data between 1960 and 2005 show lots fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth, due to a periodic expansion of the sun's magnetic field. The bigger solar magnetic field blocked many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise have hit earth. Fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth meant fewer water droplets shattering in our atmosphere, and thus fewer of the low, wet clouds that deflect solar heat back into space. So the earth warmed.

Fred and I tried to tell the world in 2007 that the moderate 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle was the cause of the warming since 1850, based on historic and paleoclimatic evidence. The cosmic ray linkage was put forth in 2008 by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. The UN's panel on climate change dismissed that whole approach, claiming the variations in the sun's irradiance were far too small to account for the rapid warming from 1976–98.

The flaw in the UN reasoning is clear, however. The alarmists claim the global warming since 1976 has been too rapid to be caused by natural forces, and therefore must be man-made. However, the earth's Industrial Revolution went global after 1945—releasing the first big flush of CO2 emissions. That burst of greenhouse gases should have sharply boosted the earth's temperatures. Instead, the earth's temperature declined from 1940–75.

Commenting on Rao's paper, V. Ramanathan of the U.S.-based Scripps Institute of Oceanography says, "The observed rapid warming trends during the last 40 years cannot be accounted for by trends in [cosmic rays]." But didn't earth's warming from 1915–1940, too early to blame on CO2, move just about as fast for just about as long as the "unnatural" warming from 1976–98?....

RuyDiaz said...

J;

You are such a dumb dickhead that the paragraph that most impressed you was the one where your writer just asserted without evidence.

Moron.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
edutcher said...

J said...

4:20. Jolly? That would be you, Scott-tard of Peoria--like maybe when yr out cruisin' with your NAMBLA pals Segway Tmmy and Edu-Beau. You f-ed up, Swinestein.

Where's Titus?

J just proposed to him.

RuyDiaz said...

What's that Ruy the zionist-satanist?

I don't speak butt-yiddish, dreck.


And, right on cue, antisemitism. Yay!

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chuck66 said...

Hey, how come we don't have a thread on this? Anthony Wiener will be in Milwaukee tomorrow to be a main spanker...I mean speaker at the Wisconsin Democrat convention. This is what democracy looks like. A child molesting pervert, and also Anthony Wiener speaking to the Democrats.

Chuck66 said...

Wonder if Herb Kohl is getting exicted about checking out Wieners Wiener.

J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seven Machos said...

Hey, J, when are will tell us about John Edwards's plan to eliminate poor people? Man, if only that dude would have been elected, they'd all be gone.

Maguro said...

Well, yes, but...um...green jobs and, er, sustainable development, you know? Peer-reviewed climate models predict that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear any time now if we don't start subsidizing grotesquely expensive battery-powered cars and diesel choo-choos that nobody wants to ride.

To summarize, the science is settled, so hand over your wallet.

Chuck66 said...

They will just come up with the next "crises" to control society.

Dead rivers

Population explosion causing starvation

Global cooling

Nuclear power

Acid rain

Hole in the ozone

Global Warming

It's always something.

Michael said...

J: Dude, its hot up there in the Valley isn't it? Solar is the way for a suburban hipster I would say. Power up the A/C and settle down to some Hegel in anticipation of cutting loose on the dumb conservatives, check the battery level and fire up the pipe. Dude, you are one dumb suburban mother crazy fucker. Impressive mood swings. Dim bulb powered by solarlib.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm shocked, shocked to find more oil around here!

Seeing Red said...

the IPCC's not Gore is it, Dr Bruce. Or the hundreds of other scientists who believe AGW.

rummage, rummage:

New errors in IPCC climate change report


The United Nations panel on climate change is facing fresh criticism today as The Sunday Telegraph reveals new factual errors and poor sources of evidence in its influential report to government leaders.


LOLOLOL

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.....

Seeing Red said...

Biased BBC:

WHERE OTHERS LEAD....
>> Sunday, April 24, 2011
A so-called "investigative" scoop in the Daily Telegraph suggesting that the BBC is involved in the organisation of COMplus, an international group that supports climate change alarmism, has also caused ripples in the blogsphere. Richard North and WUWT have followed up. I'm totally in favour of enterprising, sceptical journalism, but I'm afraid on this occasion, the Telegraph is more than a year behind. I filed this story (based on research I carried out after an item by Richard North) on COMplus - whose acolytes include toerags such as former Labour ministers Eliot Morley and Stephen Byers - on March 15, 2010 (with a follow-up amplifying some of the key points on the same day) and gave chapter on verse why it was an insiduous menace in which the BBC was playing a major role. EU Referendum also had this, detailing the full scale of COMplus linkages. What was unearthed back then went far beyond the Telegraph's latest revelations, and I spelled out one aspect of the way the influence operated:

Seeing Red said...

I do believe the proper response to J is:

"Sod off, Swampy!"






allies - well that's no fun.

Original Mike said...

"Rather, I think that they mostly think that this AGW "science" is based on the sort of hard science you find in physics and chemistry, and not on models that have numerous problems."

I'm sure if you said the word "model", they would look at you with a blank stare. I don't mean this out of disrespect, but it is the case.

chickenlittle said...

The war on fossil fuels will continue for the simple fact that too many of POTUS's biggest campaign donors (Bay area and Hollywood types) are true believers on that fight.
It's their religion.

Bruce Hayden said...

the IPCC's not Gore is it, Dr Bruce. Or the hundreds of other scientists who believe AGW.

Temps have gone up. The reasons for that increase--manmade CO2 or other GHGs--that's not completely resolved. But that doesn't mean there is no problem
.

The later problem there is that, yes, temps went up in the 1990s. But since then? Maybe. Maybe not. And, during that decade or so when temps were going up, solar radiation levels were also rising. Solar radiation levels dropped off, and so did the temps. Probably. And, then Dr. Mann came along with his hockey stick...

But another problem is that we really don't know what has happened over even the last 50 years, more/less the last thousand or so in terms of global temperatures. ClimateGate blew the top off of the "science", and, in particular, the models that showed the global warming. It turns out that the five primary global temperature data sets are not independent, but at least 3 of them are dependent upon and had been calibrated to the one generated by the ClimateGate people at East Anglia, and they couldn't reproduce their results from the raw data if their lives depended on it. Rather, it turned out that they were using data that had been massaged in an ad hoc manner, and they couldn't explain the rational for the massaging. And, then, on top of that, the computer programs that did they used turned out to be unverifiable, due to their horrid coding.

As to the hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who believe in AGW, keep in mind that a lot of those statistics involve scientists who have no knowledge of this area. I am talking chemists, biologists, etc. Why anyone would consider them to be more knowledgeable than the guy on the street is beyond me. I have to assume that they based their belief on the preponderance of peer reviewed articles on one side, without taking into account how that had been so thoroughly gamed by AGW proponents.

And, for those who actually deal in this area, it appears that when you get into the related disciplines, such as physics, computer science, statistics, etc., where those "climate scientists" have ventured, there is a lot of skepticism in the areas of these scientists expertise. The physicists question the physics, the statisticians the statistics, etc.

And, as for the IPCC, keep in mind that it is part of the UN, an extraordinarily political organization, where the controlling super majority are just fine with the first world countries transferring as much of their wealth to the rest of the countries in the world as they can get. And, yes, the ClimateGate people were also in there, skewing the process. It was not the least bit surprising that such a massively corrupt organization would end up publishing highly biased and politically based results.

Dudley Do-right said...

Anyonen else catch the import of the second sentence in the Salon article? It's the basis for the entire green-energy/anti-fossil fuel boondoggle...in a nutshell.

It seems the educated public is now "taught to believe" rather than taught to think (for themselves). The Obama phenomena now makes perfect sense...as well as the fact that we're in trouble on almost every front.

ken in sc said...

J is an obvious moby. He is saying things to make leftists look even more ridiculous than they really are.

Original Mike said...

"Taught", I would add, by journalists who couldn't differentiate y = x.

Mel said...

A guy I fight with on Facebook says fracking causes earthquakes!!!

bagoh20 said...

"A guy I fight with on Facebook says fracking causes earthquakes!!!"

Then clearly this technology is not new.

Garbage said...

I am buying the first ticket on the high speed train to Hawai'i.

Scott M said...

Fuck you yid-satanists

I'm asking in all honesty, J. Please tell me what a yid-satanist is and how you know someone is one.

MikeR said...

Bruce Hayden: "I would respectfully disagree...So, who do you count in your survey?" All good questions, and perhaps I don't know the answer. The survey was done by Bray and von Storch; you can see in it the population they used.

But one thing I'll say for sure. I wasn't on the list. It's an important part of my self-image that I don't pretend to expertise when I don't have it. Nor do I pretend that no one else is expert either.

I have no difficulty believing that the field needs a lot of work. Just that I'm not going to be able to do the judging.

AJ Lynch said...

Crack asked:
"Is anybody going to prison for wasting our time, resources, and money?"

Prison!? Jeez - I thought I was mean because I am still waiting to see somebody in govt get blamed for 911, the housing bubble, Fwannie/ Fweddie, Wall Street and bank failure, bad intel on Saddam's WMD, etc etc

Seeing Red said...

February 17, 2005

Kyoto protest beaten back by inflamed petrol traders

By Laura Peek and Liz Chong

WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.

What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.” Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: “Sod off, Swampy....”

phalli - wrong thread 4 this 1.

AJ Lynch said...

Bago - Good one - I heard they found evidence invisible trolls have been fracking for centuries mostly in Japan and Chile and California.

Seeing Red said...

"A guy I fight with on Facebook says fracking causes earthquakes!!!"



Fracking?

I thought it was Haliburton's Black Ops Division?

virgil xenophon said...

Mel/

It's true. I was TDY @ Lowry AFB in Denver in 68 when a small earthquake occurred that was directly attributable to the Army nuclear wpns facility at Rocky Flats outside Denver pumping nuclear wastes down deep wells for disposal. On the findings of geologists that this was the case, the Army suspended pumping operations and the series of small quakes stopped. Not exactly "fracking," technically, but in the the ball-park.

Fen said...

J's devolved back into his racist rants and meltdown. Nice work, gents.

But I'm beginning to think he's parody.

Seeing Red said...

Via the Daily Caller:


James Delingpole at The Daily Telegraph reports on this summer’s Bilderberg meeting, where the secret rulers of the universe meet every year to decide how to destroy Alex Jones. Delingpole has noticed an unusual item on the Bilderberg agenda:

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.

Global cooling. It’s kind of like global warming, except the exact opposite.

I don’t know about you, but every once in a while I hear about how I shouldn’t drive a car, or use proper light bulbs, or basically live the life of a 21st Century American because it’s melting the icebergs and making Al Gore cry. Why are these guys worried about global cooling? Could it have something to do with the way “global warming” became “climate change” became “global climate disruption”? Will they now try to shift from “the polar bears need life jackets” to “the polar bears need comfy sweaters” and hope nobody notices....

Seeing Red said...

Clouds and Climate Confusion
Ronald Bailey | December 9, 2010

...What is the new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it isn’t new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research earlier this year,...

Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback
we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback. But how can this be? How can two climate researchers using the same dataset come to opposite onclusions?

The answer lies in an issue that challenges researchers in most scientific disciplines – separating cause from effect.

Dessler’s claim (and the IPCC party line) is that cloud changes are caused by temperature
changes and not the other way around. Causation only occurs in one direction, not the other.
In their interpretation, if one observes a warmer year being accompanied by fewer clouds,
then that is evidence of positive cloud feedback. Why? Because if warming causes fewer clouds, that would let in more sunlight which then amplifies the warming. That is positive cloud feedback in a nutshell.

But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, what if previous researchers have simply mixed up cause and effect when estimating cloud feedbacks?

What we demonstrated in our JGR paper earlier this year is that when cloud changes cause
temperature changes, it gives the illusion of positive cloud feedback – even if strongly negative cloud feedback is really operating!

I cannot overemphasize the importance of that last statement.

We used essentially the same satellite dataset Dessler uses, but we analyzed those data with
something called ‘phase space analysis.’ Phase space analysis allows us to “see” behaviors in the climate system that would not be apparent with traditional methods of data analysis. It is like using an MRI to spot a type of tumor that X-rays cannot see.

What we showed was basically a new diagnostic capability that can, to some extent, separate
cause from effect. This is a fundamental advance.

he Dessler paper is like someone publishing medical research that claims the tumors do not
exist because they still do not show up on our latest X-ray equipment ... even though the new
MRI technology shows that they do exist!

We even replicated the behavior seen in the satellite data that was analyzed with phase space
analysis — our MRI for the climate system – by using a simple forcing-feedback climate model containing a negative feedback component. We demonstrated that the satellite data Dessler analyzed are actually showing negative cloud feedback, not positive feedback.....



forkst - stick a fork in climate disruption.

Seeing Red said...

Via Powerline today:

Following up on the post immediately below, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said today:

Oil production in Canada, the largest supplier to the United States, is forecast to jump 68 percent to 4.7 million barrels per day by 2025....

The rise in production from 2.8 billion barrels in 2010, largely in the Athabasca oil sands of Western Canada, reflects an improved investment climate, more robust commodity prices and increased market demand, the association said.

That's great: we would much rather be buying our oil from Canada than from the Middle East or Venezuela. But how about our own domestic production? The Institute For Energy Research reports:

Today, Michael Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As has seemed to become his custom, Mr. Bromwich spent his time desperately attempting to provide cover for the Obama Administration's anti-energy agenda.

In his written testimony, Mr. Bromwich claims that shallow water drilling permits "have averaged 6 per month since October 2010, compared to an average of 8 per month in 2009." He is correct. However, he forgets to mention that shallow water permits granted in 2008 averaged 16.8 per month. Mr. Bromwich's statement highlights the drastic decrease in shallow water permitting since President Obama came into office. ...

But the administration's shallow water permitting record is fantastic when compared to deepwater permits. BOEMRE has only approved two permits to drill a new well in waters deeper than 500 feet since the end of the moratorium.

IER notes that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is currently 360,000 barrels a day below Energy Information Administration expectations because of the Obama administration's policies.

Synova said...

There is this awful "green" add on hulu just now. It's a "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" copycat with "I'm clean gas, I'm electric", and the gas guy is obnoxious and explains how he's spending money to claim he's green but he's really raking it in by destroying the environment... He does such a bad job of being appealing that they call in Fabio to smile at the camera.

And then they have a car graphic at the end, so I'm assuming it was a promo for electric cars.

And it almost is bad enough to make me actually angry. Where do they think that the electricity comes from? God?

AJ Lynch said...

Synova- I think I actually expend more net energy when I have to wait for my computers to power up after they have gone into that stupid powersave mode. I am pretty sure it gets my blood pressure up.

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jamboree said...

My dad worked on shale back in the day as an engineer -I don't follow the energy industy that closely, but it's nice to see them finally making progress after FREAKING THIRTY FIVE YEARS. On the weekends he worked on his own patented process in the garage.

Shale was going to be the Next Big Thing back in the Carter Days. My dad is dead, so he won't be available for comment.

Fred4Pres said...

They are making progress now because getting oil (and gas) from shale and other less accessable sources is not worth it when oil is less than $25 a barrel. But when it stays sustained over $75, all these options are available. Which is the part Peak Oil never really got.

roesch-voltaire said...

This has been hyped by the gas industry for years, but as usual the devil is in the details: lots of wasted water, now a limited resource, and possible earthquakes which is why it was halted in Arkansas, etc. You can be sure no matter what energy we use in the future, it will not be cheap.

LakeLevel said...

Seeing Red: Why are these guys worried about global cooling?

They are probably woried about this because the last time the sun was acting like it is now, the globe had a small problem called "The Little Ice Age". By this time in the sunspot cycle we should be seeing a "number" of above 100. The last time the sunspot cycle had numbers this low was during the little ice age. A theory is that when the sun produces fewer charged particles (during lower sunspot periods), the earth's ionisphere contracts and provides less protection from cosmic rays. The cosmic rays produce more clouds which block the sun, causing gobal cooling.

Global cooling would be waaaaay worse than global warming. Think large scale crop failures and food riots.

Original Mike said...

"water, now a limited resource"

The planet earth is short of water????

Scott M said...

Peak Water, didn't you know?

MadisonMan said...

The planet earth is short of water????

Plenty of water, but not always in the right place, as far as fracking goes.

Steve Koch said...

Part of the revolution in the ability to recover oil is directional drilling and horizontal drilling based on measurement while drilling and formation evaluation while drilling.

Using downhole sensors, it is possible to perform a variety of measurements downhole that are transmitted uphole to permit the driller to know what kind of formation he is drilling through. So, instead of just drilling blindly through downhole formations, one can directionally drill, staying mostly in the oil bearing layer. This ability radically improved the efficiency of recovering oil from narrow formations.

The engineering in this project was quite complex and sophisticated.

Original Mike said...

"Plenty of water, but not always in the right place, as far as fracking goes."

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."

Scott M said...

Plenty of water, but not always in the right place, as far as fracking goes

We Americans used to be pretty damned good at engineering projects. Seems like we've kind of lost that, but it doesn't mean we can't get it back in a heartbeat.

Steve Koch said...

The direct impact of CO2 on temp is quite small. If you double the amount of CO2 in the air, the air temp is raised by 1 degree C. Current CO2 level in the world is 390 ppm and is going up 2 ppm per year.

To double the CO2 in the air (i.e. to raise temp by 1 degree C) at current rates will take 390 ppm / 2 ppm per year = 195 years (nearly two centuries)!

Positive or negative feedbacks to that warming could accelerate or decelerate the warming but climate science is not close to being able to model those feedbacks accurately. The world's climate is enormously complex, poorly understood, and is a chaotic system (think butterfly effect). Chaotic systems are next to impossible to model because very tiny changes in inputs can lead to enormous changes in outputs.

One specific difficulty in climate science is understanding the effect of clouds on climate. Until climate scientists understand cloud formation and cloud impact on climate much, much better, they will not be close to being able to predict climate.

Temps in the contiguous 48 states have declined by about 1 degree F in the last 13 years according to this fed gov website:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»