Weather Channel Founder Makes Another Challenge to Gore

John Coleman 

A guest post by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego. See his previous challenge published here called “An Open Letter to Environmentalists

Note from Anthony: I know John from way back. He’s a true pioneer in meteorology. I shared a table with him and Joe D’Aleo at the ICCC in New York in March, and I was there when you made his now famous challenge to Al Gore. Here he makes another. One of the biggest issue in my mind (that John touches on indirectly) is the logarithmic effect of CO2. Yes is causes warming, but beyond a point it’s effect diminishes.

Even Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS) admits the amount of forcing in the 20th century due to CO2 is uncertain:

“One such question is the percentage of 20th Century warming that can be attributed to CO2 increases. This appears straightforward, but it might be rather surprising to readers that this has neither an obvious definition, nor a precise answer. I will therefore try to explain why.”

[he goes on to cite modeling, forcings etc. here]

“In summary, I hope I’ve shown that there is too much ambiguity in any exact percentage attribution for it to be particularly relevant, though I don’t suppose that will stop it being discussed.”

In my mind, if you can’t quantify it, either by first order principles, by measurement, or by modeling, then saying “there’s too much ambiguity for it to be relevant” certainly does not help the argument. To imply then that we understand the atmosphere well enough to model the outcome and to publish scenarios that predict the future of global temperature based on CO2 level in our atmosphere, certainly then would be, “derived ambiguity”.


 

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas

by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. 

It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. 

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. 

The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming.  There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.  But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”.  For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.  That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age.  Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. 

Well, it is simply not happening.  Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.  That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline.  Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years.  So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it.  He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns.  Oh, really.  We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots.  If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels.  They don’t have any other issue.  Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated.  And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable.  The Earth does not have a fever.  Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper.  One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy.  Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming.  It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements.  His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve.  When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements.  Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide.  It is a natural component of our atmosphere.  It has been there since time began.  It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans.  It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis.  Nothing would be green without it.  And we humans; we create it.  Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  It is not a pollutant. It is not smog.  It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. 

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere.  Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand.  That makes it a trace component.  Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth?  It can’t.  That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming  The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes?  First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented.  And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s.  Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue.  Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless.  Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been.  So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide.  And, that is the rub.  Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. 

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures.  By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming.  Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth?  That is the most amazing part of the story. 

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force.  Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure.  Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming.  It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard.  After all the media loves a crisis.  From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN.  CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. 

So who is going to go against all of that power?  Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express.  That is one crowded bus. 

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue.  On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released.  Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds.  Think about that.  Thirty-one thousand.  That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.   A few more join the chorus every week.  There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC.  There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year.  One hundred of us gave presentations.  Attendance was limited to six hundred people.  Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming.  And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner.  He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com.  Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments.  I get hundreds of supportive emails from them.  No I am not alone and the debate is not over. 

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme.  That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet.  The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win.  The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue.  I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy.  The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks.  Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy.  We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization.  Not because global warming is real; it is not.  But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. 

I love this civilization.  I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jack
June 13, 2008 10:25 am

What proof do you have that CO2 caused the 6 degree rise Paleocene-Eocene ?

I asked Coleman (and you can investigate yourself) what could have caused this OTHER than greenhouse gases.
The data is based on shifts in stable carbon isotopes. Read the references. It was very likely initially a massive methane release (probably from clathrates). The amount of methane was oxidized to CO2; the CO2 implication is obvious due to alteration of oceanic pH, also seen in seafloor sediment cores. The temperature increase is also seen in isotopic data, likely oxygen isotopes.
There isn’t anything called “proof” in science. There are the most plausible, plausible, and less-plausible hypotheses/theories. Feel free to come up with a more plausible (it’d also be nice if it were testable) that would have caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Max temperature increase that doesn’t require greenhouse gas radiative forcing — the thing that Coleman belittles.
If there is no plausible non-greenhouse gas hypothesis, then Coleman is clearly wrong on the basic thesis of his article.
REPLY: Would not the same sea floor sediment cores show a pH change if temperature led CO2? How sure is the dating resolution for those cores at that age?

Leon Brozyna
June 13, 2008 10:29 am

kim, good point about Gore’s status in the UK. While I’m aware of it, I doubt most average citizens know this. A U.S. based lawsuit would be hard to ignore, even for the biased media {though they’d probably minimize such a suit as a publicity stunt}. But if the suit also inspires FTC action, things could get very interesting indeed for Mr. Gore and his cohorts. In the long run, though, the issue will be resolved by good science — that, and a long quiet sun.

Jack
June 13, 2008 10:37 am

Kim: The Eocene Hyperthermal Event is not what is happening today.

As noted in my reply to the second Reply from AW, the most plausible cause of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Max is a big increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases and its associated radiative forcing. This indicates the operation of the radiative forcing mechanism of global temperatures by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Coleman’s piece directly attacked that mechanism. The paragraph I’m responding to is the one that begins “The UN IPCC…” (As an aside, that’s wrong too; the IPCC doesn’t fund research.)
So… the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a natural demonstration of the temperature effect of the increased radiative forcing caused by increasing greenhouse gases. And unless I’m mistaken, that IS the same thing that is happening today. Either CO2 is a radiative forcing factor, or it is not. If it is not, I’m wrong. If it is, Coleman is wrong.

kim
June 13, 2008 10:38 am

Leon, it is absolutely devastating to me that this paradigm might not have been broken except for the quiescent sun. Why couldn’t we figure this out for ourselves? Science, whew.
=========================

kim
June 13, 2008 10:39 am

Maybe the FCC could get involved. It is fraudulent advertising.
=====================================

Steve Stip
June 13, 2008 10:44 am

“Maybe the best measure, though extreme and very draconian, is to put on hold stock holder returns at a lower percentage rate with the demand that if you want to sell your product here or ship it elsewhere, profits must go to exploration, extraction, and increased refineries.” Pam Gray
You really have no intuitive grasp of the power of freedom, do you? You are well intentioned, but you know what they say.

Mike Kelley
June 13, 2008 10:46 am

Newspaper sales have slumped, and then some. Here is the stock chart for my local paper’s owners. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LEE#symbol=LEE;range=my

Jack
June 13, 2008 11:02 am

REPLY: Would not the same sea floor sediment cores show a pH change if temperature led CO2? How sure is the dating resolution for those cores at that age?

Temperature-leading-CO2 is an irrelevant question for this event. The temperature increase is very large and obvious in the isotopic data. Radiative forcing by atmospheric greenhouse gases is the most plausible cause of that temperature increase. So the basic question is: could anything else in the geophysical realm have done it?
REPLY: Well I’ll look into it, I’m not up on Paleoclimatology for that period, also check your email (the one used on this blog during submission).

Jack
June 13, 2008 11:04 am

Patrick Henry: You are obviously interested in paleoclimatology. So what caused the Little Ice Age? Did atmospheric CO2 drop suddenly?

The cause of the Little Ice Age was a slight decline in solar activity. That’s well-known and is related to the issue raised in Coleman’s piece. The issue on which I challenge Coleman is radiative forcing of climate by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Jack
June 13, 2008 11:10 am

For Joe: here’s the whole paragraph from Kump’s paper:
“We have made the natural world our laboratory, but the experiment is
inadvertent and thus not designed to yield easily decipherable results.
Consequently, we will have difficulty isolating the effects of our
manipulations from natural variations in climate until the signal has
risen well above the noise (and the climate perhaps has been
detrimentally altered). In looking into the past history of the planet
for clues to the future, we find general support for the notion that an
increase in atmospheric pCO2 will cause global warming.
However,
in detail the relationship is neither linear nor in phase on all
timescales. Proxy indicators of global warmth do not always coincide
with proxy indications of elevated pCO2, and when they do, as in the
Late Pleistocene, there is no lead–lag relationship from which one
might hope to assign cause and effect. Fortunately, improved models
evaluated against expanded high-fidelity palaeoclimate databases are
on the horizon, and should be adequate to support policy decisions
concerning the reduction of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. In the
meantime, there are unsettling indications that these models are
underestimating rather than overestimating the climatic consequences
of greenhouse gas build-up.”

kim
June 13, 2008 11:30 am

Mike Kelley, did they derive that curve through PCA analysis?
==============================

June 13, 2008 11:41 am

Jack, is there another era other than today and Eocene Hyperthermal Event with a fingerprint of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Moreover, are there any estimates of atmospheric concentrations?
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com

Patrick Henry
June 13, 2008 12:05 pm

Hi Jack,
You said: The cause of the Little Ice Age was a slight decline in solar activity.
If you believe that small changes in solar activity can cause significant changes in the climate – your viewpoint would appear to disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, Hansen and Lovelock. How do you reconcile those differences? Is somebody wrong?

Pamela Gray
June 13, 2008 12:18 pm

The power of freedom has very little to do with the price of making a product. Diamonds are a case in point. Difficult to find, difficult to extract, difficult to refine. High price. Are you saying that if companies were allowed to mine diamonds at will that the price would go down? Only if diamonds are in every mound of dirt laying on top of the ground. Which is not the case. It getting harder and harder to find these little gems. All that expensive exploration, extraction, and cutting would actually increase the cost of diamond production, leading to lower profits unless final price goes up to make up for the increase in production cost. Of course I don’t need a diamond to get to Albany, Oregon today for my son’s graduation from Western Oregon University. I need petrol.
Freedom does not dictate prices, profits do. The middle East has no freedom yet they rake in profits, so the idea that markets work better when freedom is king is a simplistic statement that reveals little about the current price of fuel. When a product is cheap to develop, and folks have income, and everybody wants it, profits are gleaned from sheer volume. When a product becomes expensive to develop, and everybody still wants it, profits come from higher prices. If profits were to be sunk into expensive fuel production here in the land of freedom, even given free reign to do that, it would lead to lower margins, leading to pressure to increase prices so that profits can be maintained. Eventually the cost of production outstrips the price that the general market will tolerate, leading to backyard crisco fuels as the general market stops buying diamond fuel. Once again, investors will spend their money on stocks elsewhere, leaving expensive shale oil fuel to the rich to purchase, much like diamonds. There is no incentive for flooding the market with fuel to lower fuel prices cuz “There taint no money in it”.
Please show me where the freedom incentive is for digging up shale oil and building new refineries.

R John
June 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Jack –
I’ll take up the challenge for John Coleman.
In Bowen’s paper he states, “What triggered the PETM carbon release or releases remains a critical question. In considering the PETM as a potential analogue to modern global change, it is important to understand whether the PETM was initiated as a feedback (i.e., as climate crossed a warming threshold) or as an externally forced event. If the PETM carbon release was a feedback, it implies that human-induced warming may also trigger a cascade of amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks. If the PETM carbon release was forced externally, it might be better considered analogous to anthropogenic carbon
release itself. Although no clear consensus exists in this matter, the suggestion that multiple PETM-like events may have occurred in phase with orbital cycles potentially falsifies hypotheses linking the PETM to singular
forcing factors such as bolide impacts or volcanic events.”
This paper is full of conjecture and proves nothing – as noted above when they say “may”. Further, many other variables are not accounted for like the obvious one – the Sun. I find it surprising that this was a publishable scientific paper.
Jack if you are so sure of this, then please go collect the $500K that Steven Milloy is offering on junkscience.com. Or – please come debate the topic in a public town hall with one of us skeptics.

anna v
June 13, 2008 1:08 pm

Jack, 11:02
“Temperature-leading-CO2 is an irrelevant question for this event. The temperature increase is very large and obvious in the isotopic data. Radiative forcing by atmospheric greenhouse gases is the most plausible cause of that temperature increase. So the basic question is: could anything else in the geophysical realm have done it?”
Good old little H2O, the main greenhouse gas that is used in the IPCC models to bootstrap the tiny anthropogenic contribution to scarry heights?
Methane itself is much more efficient( absorption/emission spectra) as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and sudden appearance of methane would do it with no call for CO2 which is much less efficient.
That a “greenhouse” effect keeps the earth away from moonlike temperatures is not something that people are disputing.
It is the anthropogenic part of CO2, and the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect that is questioned successfully in my opinion. Sure it will take part, as a minor player.

Peter
June 13, 2008 1:38 pm

“And by the way, if you’re concerned about the logarithmic effect of CO2 “diminishing”, you may wish to investigate the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Max yourself, because it would appear to me that effect really didn’t influence the roughly 6 degrees C rise that happened during that event.”
If you place two jars outside, one filled with air and the other filled with CO2, which one will get warmer? And by how much? And why should that be, considering your assertion?

Russ R.
June 13, 2008 2:00 pm

Pamela,
I have often enjoyed reading your posts, and I am sure we would agree on many things. But your understanding of macro-economics is very mixed-up. In a free market, prices are set by supply and demand. The greater the supply the lower the price. At lower prices, suppliers will produce less, creating an equilibrium with the current demand level. Also as the price increases, demand will decrease, creating an imbalence, which is corrected by lower prices. Share-holder returns are based on three things: Equity in the company, current profits and expectations of future profits. While high prices are good for shareholders, shareholders do not have the ability to manipulate prices in a free market.
Now much of the oil market is outside the control of our government, so it is not strictly a free market. But there are enough suppliers to soak up, un-met demand, and maintain a modestly free market. Otherwise we would have seen these high prices long ago.
There are three main issues that have all conspired to create the problem we now find ourselves in.
1) Increased demand for oil, mainly from China and India.
2) Lack of new supplies. These come mainly from development of new oil reserves. Most of the best sites are off-limits to drilling. Thanks to the anti-fossil fuel-enviro movement, every new development, spends several years fighting legal battles to drill anywhere. So many of the new supplies are coming from unstable places in the world, where the enviros have not been able to fight oil development successfully. Most of the world oil reserves are owned by foreign governments, and they are going to do what is best for them. But they are usually full of corruption and non-producing elements, that prevent them from increasing supplies when the price goes up.
3) Commodities market speculation – when there is an underlaying issue, there is a tendency to bid-the-bubble until it pops. This is the area where high-returns are demanded, but with it, comes high risks.
Oil is a boom-bust business and right now it is in a boom cycle. There is nothing new or unusual about this one, other than the restrictions on getting additional supplies to market in a timely fashion. If there were less obstructions to producing more oil, we would have less lawyers fees on every gallon you buy (non-producing overhead), and more rough-necks out there, finding the oil you need, to go to your son’s graduation
( congratulations! ).

R John
June 13, 2008 2:22 pm

Well said – Russ
Another problem is that many countries like China and Venezuela subsidize their fuel prices. In that case, demand is artificially high. If the Chinese and others were paying the equivalent of $4, then we wouldn’t see as much pressure on the prices as they would have to make sacrifices in their own driving habits.

Russ R.
June 13, 2008 2:30 pm

I also forgot one of the big issues, that has caused oil prices to go up. That is a weak dollar. Oil is priced in dollars, and when it goes down in value compared to other currencies, it requires more dollars to purchase the same item ( in this case a barrel of oil ).
So if we SWAG the real price of oil (exploration, drilling, transportation) at $60, we add $20 for a weak dollar, $20 for restrictions on supplies, $10 for additional demand caused by government subsidies to users, and $30 from market speculators driving up the futures market. That puts us at about $140 oil.

Syl
June 13, 2008 2:53 pm

Pam
“Please show me where the freedom incentive is for digging up shale oil and building new refineries.”
The oil companies have NO freedom to do so. It is currently illegal to dig for the shale. Ask Congress. As for refineries, all the hoops the companies must go through to build one including regulations, environmental impact studies, and overcoming NIMBY answers itself.
re PETM
I think of it as some kind of tragic event that happened in our planet’s history. No planet is safe from them. When Yellowstone blows again it will be another in a different direction.
The PPM had to be extremely high for that supposed temp rise. Today there is no absolute consensus as to how much rise there has already been, letalone how much there will be, with our still modest amount of CO2.

dt
June 13, 2008 3:20 pm

Pamela,
Your theory is way off. At current prices there would be huge profits in offshore drilling and shale recovery. Shale recovery is profitable at $35-$40 per barrel, offshore drilling at much less. Oil companies would LOVE to develop our very large domestic oil supplies. The problem is we have a long standing moratorium against those oil sources in this country. Democrats made sure the moratorium stayed in place on March 13th of this year.
For the record: offshore oil under the moratorium is estimated to be 60-120 billion barrels. Shale? 800 billion – 1.5 trillion barrels. We could actually be energy independent in the U.S. if we wanted, but for the green war against fossil fuels.
BTW, diamonds are not expensive because they’re hard to find. They’re actually not that rare. Diamonds are expensive because the diamond industry is under the influence of one of the only truly successful cartels in economic history. OPEC has nothing on the diamond cartel. OPEC is a miserable failure by comparison.
You said: “Freedom does not dictate prices, profits do.”
Wrong. The intersection of supply and demand dictate prices. Profits are not even guaranteed at that intersection point.

June 13, 2008 3:25 pm

Jack:
I’ve read a particular paleoclimate review of the Vostok ice data but can’t find the paper, so I’ll reconstruct the argument for you here.
Take a look at this Vostok ice core:
http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk/IceCores1.gif
The CO2 levels associated with past interglacials is 180 to 300 ppm, well below where we are now.
325 kya when CO2 went from 200 to 310 ppm, what did the temperature trend show? It shot up 3 or more degrees, didn’t it? The problem is that contemporary CO2 levels were already at 280 ppm during the Little Ice Age and have risen to 385 ppm; however, we’ve yet to see any hint of an equivalent temperature trend, not even latent heat in the seas (oh sure, there’s some, but it’s not piling up at the rate predicted).
OTOH look at this chart:
Light oxygen, isotopic Oxygen-16 is used to reconstruct paleoclimate b/c glaciers lock up light oxygen and reaches a minimum as ice ages reach an arid maximum.
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302e/Labs/2006/Lab7/Lab07_files/image006.jpg
If you superimpose the light oxygen data (flip & stretch) over the past 200ky, (that’s easy to do even with MS Paint) you’ll see that the light oxygen trend line matches more closely to the paleo temperature trend than does the paleo CO2 trend where CO2 & temperatures periodically slip out of tight correlation (between 80 – 110kya and 160 – 180 kya).
http://i29.tinypic.com/28iyro8.jpg
( superimposition of the light oxygen chart over the vostok chart).
Eyeball analysis time: There are two discontinuities between CO2 & temperature that aren’t discontinuities between Light Oxygen and temperature.
Can you see the point? B/c of its evaporative and water-forming nature, light oxygen availability is a direct reflection of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. So what’s the dominant driving agent? Is it CO2? Is it water vapor?
This is why climate agnostics aren’t won over by the pro-AGW paleoclimate studies, they seem anecdotal. If CO2’s effect were consistently strong (and it’s causes steeper temperature changes at lower concentrations) then temperatures would follow more closely to the CO2 line, but they don’t, temperatures follow the water vapor line (and vice versa). What CO2 effect there is is inconclusive.
CO2 may play a role, but it isn’t dominant throughout the paleo record. Just b/c it correlates doesn’t mean it causates.
Our current 380 ppm CO2 level isn’t reflected by the paleo data, contemporary CO2 levels have surpassed the level of spectral absorption that has been claimed to have caused that much warming in the paleo record. And the more CO2 is added to the air, the less additional effect it has in a trend of progressively diminishing returns.
Something’s inconsistent with the theory that CO2 drives temperatures.

Admin
June 13, 2008 3:28 pm

The embargo on domestic energy sources predates the “green war on fossil fuels” but is certainly intensified by it.
Historical reasons.
1. Fears of offshore oil spills–icky.
2. Concern about mining effects on land–mining is icky.
No real point here, just a historical reminder.

JP
June 13, 2008 3:49 pm

To Tom in Florida.
Here’s a hint’ most of the oil companies must buy thier oil via commodity brokers in the form of oil futures. That is, they do not own the oil underground in places like Iran, Saudi Arbaia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, and Bahrain.
The price of refined gasoline is at the mercy of forces the energy companies cannot control. Congress and the Fed Chiarman have more power to influence the price of both oil and refined gas than does BP, Citgo, or Exxon.