Normally I do this on Sunday or Monday, but this has been an extraordinary week in many ways.
This QOTW comes from an unexpected and surprising source. When I read it, I realized that it describes what we witnessed today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
“When the strategic interest of the nation and the world is so clear, can a few gluttons with a few bucks really drive our policy? Does this great country not have better leadership than that?”
Guess who said it? Don’t be tempted to click through right away, think about it a bit.
Who said it?
NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, in a personal essay written on the evening of June 25th.
Dr. Hansen’s latest has seen little notice due to the intense media coverage of the deaths of celebrities followed by the Waxman Markey bill in the house today.
He may not have intended those words to be relevant to today’s situation, as it was written in the context of coal in West Virginia. However, they seem prescient now.
Read his latest missive here (PDF).
Looking at his essay written the evening before, ( Thursday at 4:55PM EST, I checked the document properties) I wonder if Dr. Hansen even thought about today’s vote at all?
Here’s a man writing about himself, the day before “historic” climate legislation, much of it due to what he started in an address to congress on June 23rd, 1988, and all he thinks about is coal in West Virginia and describing his experience there?
Odd.
Back to science tomorrow. – Anthony
The myopia of the true believer.
And to add insult to injury, it’s not even some great big secret conspiracy – there’s not enough intelligence in that domed structure to partake in such a venture.
Did you catch the Constitutional-esque quote relating to his four demands that he bolded at the bottom of page 2?
“We hold it self evident that these demands are just, feasible, and essential.”
He really isn’t a very convincing advocate. I’m not sure that there’s much there that a PR firm could use.
..back to science tomorrow,
Because there sure as hell wasn’t any in Congress today.
Odd.
Hmm.
Interesting word to apply to Hansen.
It seems soft for some reason. Almost coddling.
Poor little odd Jim.
I wonder how odd he will become in the coming months and years.
IMO he has the potential to become very odd.
Possibly the oddest of them all.
In a few short years, living on the fringe with health and finacial problems wating for the sea to rise, and still admired by his odd little Gavin friends.
They’ll continue theorizing a gloomy climate future while never realizing their oddity or the need to apologize for it.
Or maybe not. I could be just odd myself.
Last I heard, Hansen was in prison in England.
You don’t mean to say that they were so stupid as to relaese him!
What is the strateguc interest of the world?
As you noted here, Hansen, to his credit, is dead set against Cap and Trade. However you feel about reducing our carbon footprint and gutting our economy, its easy to be against legislation that won’t cut our carbon emissions much, transfer’s billions to special interests and the government, and guts the economy too.
It looks like the Senate isn’t going along. I think the only way Pelosi was able to get the house to go along is by assuring them it was DOA in the Senate, and bribing farm staters with continued ethanol incentives.
Rats, I thought for sure my ‘Good Job’ in Chinese would get me up here. Oh well, one day. My name will be up in the lights. Anyone know where I can find a wit sharpener? 😉
John H (21:43:30) :
Poor little odd Jim
True John.
They don’t need him anymore; they don’t need any of them.
What are they going to do, study AGW? The usefulness of
the useful idiots is over. Oh… a silver lining!
astronmr20 (21:41:24) :
..back to science tomorrow,
Hear, hear!
Dave
I hope this is true:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute’s annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama’s special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn’t.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on “unconvincing green science.” The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
ohioholic (22:32:09) :
Don’t feel too bad, we knew exactly what you were trying to say, but the Chinese don’t say it that way. I still haven’t been able to get characters on my computer, but in transliterated form the words would be something like “Ni tsuo-de hen-hao!” (roughly means “You did it good!”) or “Wo-men ta-jia tsuo-de hen hao!” (We all really did good!) – or a universal phrase of approval would be “Ting-Hao!” meaning literally, “Best!”.
Chinese is a language with no word for “yes” or “no” – you have to affirm or negate a verb to achieve the same effect… and the phrase “just say NO” does NOT translate in Chinese. See? Language affects the way you look at the world and establishes the categories you divide that world into. Benjamin Lee Whorf, a linguist and fire safety engineer of the 1930’s, noted that industrial fires often started in “empty” rooms, rooms that were used to store “empty” drums that at one time contained volatile chemicals. What better place to sneak a smoke than in the “empty drum room”? Language shapes perception, and the Chinese perceive the world in very, very different terms than we do. As do warmers. We may not have been paying enough attention to the terms that frame the discussion.
The world they want is not the world they’re going to get. Their cause has been co-opted. As it ever was.
John H (21:43:30) :
LoL….. That was oddly satisfying to read;-)
And I always thought the strategic interest of the world was the creation of a global totalitarion government.
It’s not odd at all. He is a self-absorbed egomaniac (from the department of redundancy department)–just like pResident Minderbinderand his handlers, who have just fulfilled Nikita Krushchev’s 1956 prediction.
ohioholic (22:32:09) :
Rats, I thought for sure my ‘Good Job’ in Chinese would get me up here.
I worked in China for a while. I asked for a Tsin Dao beer in a bar one day and the barmaid gave me a pair of scissors. (Apparently the word for scissors is also tsin dao. I used the wrong tones.)
At long last it has been said. Says Paul Bachman, director of research at the Beacon Hill Institute, “Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow.”
http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/GreenJobs09/PressReleaseBHIGreenJobsStudy090625.htm
We few in the UK, who are up to speed in these matters, join in your despair at the passing of this stupid bill and we hope it fails in the Senate.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
“Back to science tomorrow. – Anthony”
Sorry Anthony, I’m afraid one of the victims of AGWing is science itself. When science is abused and used as a cloak for a money and power grab, it’s hard to respect it.
What I found striking about the essay is the way it treats blue collar workers as if they physically deformed by their work. Those thick necks got that way keeping a country running that provides a cushy living for the pencil-necks that live off the taxes collected from the people who didn’t go to college.
But, I wanted to know if the tropical wave off the yucatan was going to become a tropical storm and not on how might makes right.
“Dr. Hansen’s latest has seen little notice due to the intense media coverage of the deaths of celebrities followed by the Waxman Markey bill in the house today.”
Dr. Hansen’s latest has seen little notice due to the intense media coverage of the deaths of celebrities followed by the death of the nation in the house today.
What is the strateguc interest of the world?
The strategic interest of the world is functioning ecological systems. But this has no importance compared to the interest of the US and its corporations, I mean people.
The problem is not so much the few gluttons with a few bucks, as are the millions of gluttons with hardly any bucks that will support them, no matter what the truth is. I find it amazing to see how much righteous indignation the AGW-hoax can produce, whereas the WMD-hoax that is costing the US trillions of dollars and thousands of lives NOW can just continue and continue and continue.
When Jim Hansen involves himself in politics he must roundly be condemned!!!
When Jim Hansen does not involve himself in politics he must roundly be condemned!!!
These government scientists always want it both ways.
Cheer up folks, Ian Wishart is fighting back – looks like he’s angling to capture hearts and minds with a complete media push: first the book Air Con and now the documentary:
It must be working because when I flicked through the rest of the recent posts on the Air Con site (http://www.tbr.cc ), I see it has been outselling Gore, Stern and Romm on Amazon
“As of 8pm tonight:
Air Con by Ian Wishart, #16,366 on Amazon US
An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, #21,692
The Global Deal by Nicholas Stern, #35,104
Heaven & Earth by Ian Plimer, #59,652
Hell and High Water by Joe Romm of ClimateProgress, #113,490”
Maybe that’s the answer though – using video to recapture Gen-XY, with books as back-up once we get people interested.
There seem to have been too many in the skeptic community who simply couldn’t believe that the Left would successfully roll out its agenda. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee – we need to get on message and take the opposition seriously, then beat them at their own game.
The vote in the House today revealed a lot about the state of education/denial of science tomorrow.
My take is that the “science dummies for lunch bunch” joined the Next Big Bubble save the planetists in voting Yea.
Most of the Nay voters saw clearly the economic and national strength dangers laying in ambush, and sported a level of education far exceeding the political dropouts of pure party agenda.
John H (21:43:30)
Don’t forget…all the complaining he’ll do as a result of the increase in taxes that’ll follow this “historic” legislation. I’d love to read those journal entries.
Christopher Monckton has some very choices phrases about the whole shebang, this is before the vote…
“The White House weather forecast is not the last word on climate: it marks
the last stand of the ‘global warming’ profiteers, and the last gasp of the
scientific-technological elite.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/twisted_science_crooked_policy.html
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the general population were even aware that a vote was taking place. Or what the stakes and consequences of passage will likely be . I suspect it is less than 20% .
Folks, this was only a battle in the war. The next battle is in the Senate — which is much more conservative than the House.
It’s not too early to fire a warning shot across the bow of your two Senators. Plenty of Democrat House members put a thumb in the eye of Pelosi today. If the same number of Senators do the same thing, this bill can be filibustered to death.
Write/call/email your Senators: click. They want their jobs more than anything else in the world. And they are not as easily pushed around by their Party leadership. Emails, calls and letters are essential to getting this terrible bill stopped.
A few clicks on the link [make sure you identify yourself as the Senator’s constituent] helps immensely. It really takes no time at all, and you will have the satisfaction of knowing you made a difference. Senators fear and loathe their electorate. But they keep careful score. So send them a missive. Tell them to represent you, not their Party line. They crave your vote. Make them earn it.
This was one battle in the war. That’s all. The Gorebots haven’t won the war — and they’ve expended too much political capital in the House fight. They’re exhausted, while we’re just pissed off and ready for the next round. So, once more into the breach. This war is far from over.
Gotta love Hansen. Well I woke up today in a determined and bitter mood, I wrote a little opinion piece called ‘CO2 the Currency of Corruption’ this morning which I’d like to take the time to advertise.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/co2-currency-of-corruption/
None of this is ok and it has very little to do with the environment. I like Smokey’s message – once more into the breach. We must not loose this war.
“Jimmy Haigh (23:56:30) :
ohioholic (22:32:09) :
Rats, I thought for sure my ‘Good Job’ in Chinese would get me up here.
I worked in China for a while. I asked for a Tsin Dao beer in a bar one day and the barmaid gave me a pair of scissors. (Apparently the word for scissors is also tsin dao. I used the wrong tones.)”
Indeed. Language, and meaning. Ask my mate what “sap caow” (SP? Who knows, but that’s phonetic, ok) means. Either 19, or something else to do with hand movements and a particular part of the male anatomy.
BTW, my mate stared in a film with Bruce Willis, “The Fith Element”. He is the Chinese looking soldier who visits “Korben Dallas” in his apartment, name Hon Ping. Used to serve me chinese take-away (Actually used to see him cook it too), at the local across the road from the pub called The Monks Brook, in Chandlers Ford, Eastliegh, England.
I thought the quote’s author was Al Gore.
Or Ted Kaczynski.
Hard to tell them apart.
It’s silly season!
BELIEF: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence; a vaguely held notion.
DennisA (23:04:19) : AT 26.06
Senator Fielding has both a degree in engineering and an MBA. He paid for his visit to the USA with his own funds. He keeps asking the same question: If global CO2 is rising, why is the global temperature not rising?
He complains that people rephrase his question and provide answers to questions that they pose in return. He has been unable to get and engineer’s understanding of the lack of linkage between CO2 and temperature in the last 15 years.
After return from the USA, he met with Australian politicians, the Australian Chief Scientist and some dedicated AGW people. They were unwiling to address his question and unable to answer it. They tried a technique of deflection, saying that sea temperatures were the main indicator of CO2 effects, but he was not persuaded by the data shown.
The politicians and “experts” who assembled to convince him were somewhat shocked by the strength of his arguments and did not seem to realise that advanced thought had gone into the subject by other highly qualified scientists. They had eyes only for their mirror image scientists.
Which leads me to state in conclusion about the USA that it is not “science” which has given a bad name to the USA political process via the House of reps. Old school scientist are full of dismay that the smart alec approach of the climate scientists will be taken as “science at work”. We do not. We feel it is bad science at work and some rather dirty laundry purporting to be science has been hung in public gaze.
Stupid question, but… Do have the ability to contact our senators? Would be possible to keep them on the phone and opening letters and E-mails through the Idependence Day Holiday? If so, I will risk having a high overseas long distance bill to do just that.
Here’s another quote. It’s from Dr. David Evans’ description of a meeting twixt Australian Senators Wong and Fielding. Evans is a former scientist and alarmist whose research has made him change his mind and he is now a sceptic/denier.
“Remember, a trial without a defense is a sham, business without competition is a monopoly, science without debate is propaganda, and government without an opposition is usually a disaster. Who is paid to audit the IPCC? No one, it’s just a few unpaid bloggers.”
I don’t know if it’s his original quote or if he’s quoting someone else but it’s a keeper. Keep up the good fight everyone!
danbo (23:59:21) :
… When science is abused and used as a cloak for a money and power grab, it’s hard to respect it.
I still respect science, that is why I am here learning from you folks. I just don’t respect people who use science to further their own power.
Neven (03:46:22) :
… I find it amazing to see how much righteous indignation the AGW-hoax can produce, whereas the WMD-hoax that is costing the US trillions of dollars and thousands of lives NOW can just continue and continue and continue.
Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 25 thousand dollars for every attack against Israelis. After 9/11, I did not want to wait until a second suicide attack to find Saddam was paying 250 thousand dollars for every attack against America.
WMD-hoax didn’t gas the Kurds, actual WMD’s did. Where were the WMD ‘s when allied troops went in? Maybe the Iranians and Kurds had inhaled all of the WMD ‘s?
That is a truly odd report. Especially odd from a supposed man of letters. It contains none of the intellectualism typical of someone learned and wise in their discipline. Even when such things are written down to a common education level (grade 8 usually) for mass consumption, there usually remains traces of the writer’s intellectualism.
What does come through loud and clear, is that it is the opinion of someone who’s mind is made up without any regard to facts. Cognitive dissonance – its true because he believes it to be true, not because it is. Hansen is touted as an authority, but perhaps he really is just a hack. Like so many others in government service, perhaps he rose to his level through force of tenure rather than accomplishment. He stated his beliefs publicly right out of grad school. There’s little evidence that he’s subjected any of his beliefs to true critical analysis. These notes contain the same smugness apparent in published early bios. The lights may be on, but there’s clearly nobody home. Truly bizarre.
We are living in a Lysenkoist era. It is not merely climatology that is corrupted, but also many other “sciences.” Physics has the ITER project, which is one of the greatest scientific (and criminal) frauds of all time. The so-called “social sciences” are utterly depraved and politicized. And the list goes on …
Unfortunately Steve Fielding is seen as a bit of a nutter in Australia. He was elected with only a couple percentage points of total vote – and got through on preferences (a very odd system of Aussie voting). While it is true that a growing number of people are sceptical of AGW the vast majority of voters and politicians on both sides and the middle are certain of the fact and eventually the bill will be passed, even if it is for the only for the votes that politicians crave.
Anthony,
Off topic, but I got some info on the weather station at Augusta, Montana and can’t seem to get through to you with it. I have registered on the project site but have had no contact. Can you help?
Indeed, people are throwing around the idea that we got the gov’t we deserve because we “elected” them. When the people are constantly lied to, it is not possible for them to make an informed decision about how they should vote. The democratic election process has been destroyed, and we are no longer allowed a democratic process. We didn’t choose this.
Andrew
At least Dr. Hansen advocates building nuclear power plants. The trouble is that all his little green friends were anti-nuclear long before anyone anyone heard of Global Warming.
Meanwhile scientists at GE say they can convert existing coal plants to nuclear power.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/23/nuclear-power-going-fast/
I think you guys, for the most part, have got it dead wrong. Yes we do not have an AGW problem. However we do have a major impending energy problem, with peak oil for the world probably already past, peak NG for North America possibly already past, and peak coal only 3 to 4 decades away. Almost everything done to curb CO2 also helps with using energy more effectively and efficiently, or supports development of fossil fuel alternatives. Cap and trade will not wreck the economy. The same dire predictions were made before the Clean Air Act was passed back about 1992, and the Cassandras” predictions of cost were high by more than factor 10. USA competitiveness was not damaged, and major societal benefits were realized. The same will happen now, and for sure, addressing energy efficiency will create a lot of jobs, which are much needed.
The original economists’ models predicting ruin from addressing CO2 were run back about 1993, and were rerun and used to address Congressional committees in 1998. The models had two underlying fundamental assumptions that were just wrong. The primary asumption was that anything that could be done efficiency-wise was already being done, and the second was that any economic alternatives for fossil fuels were already being implemented, so that the only things that could be done to reduce CO2 were to reduce economic activity, or move to uneconomic alternatives.
So now we are starting to do the right things, even if for the wrong reason. Any reason that gets things moving in the right direction is good by me. Failing to address paek energy will really have dire economic consequences. Murray
Pat (05:48:26) :
Jimmy Haigh (23:56:30) :
ohioholic (22:32:09) :
Indeed. Language, and meaning. Ask my mate what “sap caow” (SP? Who knows, but that’s phonetic, ok) means. Either 19, or something else to do with hand movements and a particular part of the male anatomy.
Language indeed. I live in Thailand these days and speak a little of the language. I was in a restaurant in Bangkok once and insead of asking, in Thai, “Where can I was my hands” I actually asked “Where can I wash my pork?”
I’m sorry, I still can’t like James Hansen. I can only imagine what his line of reasoning would be to make him conclude this.
Neven,
Consider that the purveyers of AGW are also the same bunch who brought us “Bush Lied”.
The Iraq War was an inevitability. If Gore had been President, the Iraq war would have still happened — and we would already be eight years into Cap and Trade.
Seems to me Jim is looking for an exit strategy from the co2 warming error. By aligning himself with anti pollution campaigners he can gradually de-emphasise the unsupportable sensitivity equation and shift to the undesirable elements of emissions from coal burning, and the environmental issues around it’s production.
It’s a displacement activity for him.
Slightly off topic, but the UK Met Office is losing about $7 million in funding. I have a link here from The Register. The Register is an IT site with a very British sense of humour in their articles. Have a look at the comments as well.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/hadley_centre_for_climate_change_budget_cut_mod_funding/
Quote:
“A loss of £4.3m ($7m) funding will hit the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, according to the science journal Nature. The research institute provides the government with bleeding-edge computer models indicating which parts of the UK should stockpile sunscreen and floaties for the coming Thermageddon.”
“Power to the People” they cried.
We thought they meant us and we gave them Power.
“Cut the Power to the People”
I think they mean us this time.
Why are we still cheering?
Murray writes, “So now we are starting to do the right things, even if for the wrong reason. Any reason that gets things moving in the right direction is good by me. Failing to address paek energy will really have dire economic consequences.”
I think your lecture is off the mark. This bill does not address peak energy regarding which there’s much hysteria. Newer methods and sources of hydrocarbon fuels are not allowed in this ill-conceived bill. The bill does not encourage nuclear energy as a source of electricity for yet undeveloped electric cars. This bill is simply a revenue enhancement and expansion of govt control where certain industries and corporations with campaign contributing lobbyists rule and reward their captive congresscritters.
Dennis (07:05:47) :
Click on TIPS & NOTES TO WUWT at the top of the page.
All contact details there.
Geoff Sherrington
Seems to me that “old school scientists” have been remarkably reluctant to publicly enter the debate on “smart alect” climate science. Rather, as always, the scientific community has circled the wagons around the charlatans among it by refusing to directly confront their obviously political agenda and their flawed “science”. Still, better late than never.
“bonus extra”
What was the bonus QOTW that this is the bonus extra to? 😉
Gerard, maybe you could answer the question, ” Why is the earth’s temperature going down, while Co2 is going up”?
Murray Duffin wrote: “…So now we are starting to do the right things, even if for the wrong reason. Any reason that gets things moving in the right direction is good by me. Failing to address peak energy will really have dire economic consequences.”
The free market place will have a much better approach for doing this than any government could ever have – particularly with the current crop of clowns in control of congress.
Murray Duffin, your claims of peak this and peak that are the opposite of what every geologist I have ever spoken to say. Did you just make these up or are you parroting what someone has told you? Methinks your basic assumptions are not based on fact. An economy that is destroyed will have NO hope of finding a reasonable alternative energy source that is not subsidized up the whazoo. I would love to see a clean alternative energy source, but we have to use the little known or understood theory of common sense to achieve it.
This is not an energy bill. It will only make energy more expensive, and us more dependent on unreliable power sources.
This is not a climate bill. It will not effect the global climate at all.
This is a tax bill. It is the largest tax increase in world history. It does what every informed person knows is wrong: It raises taxes during a time of economic weakness.
This bill, if it becomes law, will not get us going in any direction but the wrong direction.
I notice that these American boondoggles typically are paired, as in “Smoot-Hawley” and “Waxman-Malarkey”. Is there some procedural reason for this or is it simply a case of needing two representatives with half a brain each to make a complete bill?
Schoolyard stuff.
Paul Coppin:
No one would responsibly assert that any two American politicians are possessed of as much as half a brain, particularly a pair including Henry “Meerkat” Waxman.
Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 25 thousand dollars for every attack against Israelis. After 9/11, I did not want to wait until a second suicide attack to find Saddam was paying 250 thousand dollars for every attack against America.
And that’s the reason for wasting trillions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of young men? Not counting all the innocent Iraqi civilians and the huge damage done to that country. That’s real smart. I can see why the AGW-hoax means so much to you.
WMD-hoax didn’t gas the Kurds, actual WMD’s did. Where were the WMD ’s when allied troops went in? Maybe the Iranians and Kurds had inhaled all of the WMD ’s?
I don’t know, ask someone at Halliburton, Blackwater or some other company that has ripped the American people off big time.
Consider that the purveyers of AGW are also the same bunch who brought us “Bush Lied”.
If Ameria woud have been all it’s cranked up to be wrt freedom and democracy, Bush and many, many others would be in prison right now, liberal as well as GOP.
The Iraq War was an inevitability. If Gore had been President, the Iraq war would have still happened — and we would already be eight years into Cap and Trade.
No war is inevitable, except when people get fooled by war profiteers. But you’re right about one thing though: It doesn’t matter who the president is in a corporatocracy.
I’m sorry for straying off-topic. Let’s all go back to investing our time and energy in fighting the AGW-hoax to protect our freedom to consume.
Neven (12:15:57) :
“Let’s all go back to investing our time and energy in fighting the AGW-hoax to protect our freedom to consume.”
Anthony’s got a tip jar. Pony up smart guy.
Hank (10:19:20) Care to elaborate?
Don S. (10:59:15) :
“meerkat”?
How, exactly, did we get someone derailing the thread into yet another anti-Bush anti-Iraq festival of half-truths???
Come on, nev-palidrome… you HAVE to be able to do better than that. You’ve simply repeated all of the half-true leftist talking points. Can you possibly add anything unique, interesting, OR accurate?
Just a couple of responses:
Markets do a lousy job of anticipating real shortages. They tend to project the past into the future. Sometimes society is better served by government intervention. In this case serendipity is providing some of the right actions, even if for the wrong reasons.
I agree we need more support of nukes, but don’t expect that to happen w/o a crisis, because of 30 or so years of anti-nuke agitation, most of which was ill-advised.
David Ball & Peak oil – no I am not ill informed. It is a subject I have followed closely since 1998, and have researched extensively. If a geologist is not sufficiently informed in this area, he would probably be no better able to address the subject than another layman. What background did your geologists have? What did they know abiut the history and status of Ghawar, or Cantarell, or the global USA reserves history and status, or tarsands production rates or Brazil deepwater developments, or – I could go on and on and could bore you for hours with the details. Sorry David, but you are not picking on a parrot. My conclusions (not assumptions) are based on haed fact.
If you want to get up to speed, read the last 2 or 3 years of http://www.theoildrum.com, as the easiest and most complete single source to access. It will take you some weeks, but I reckon your assured skepticism will take quite a beating. Murray
Even assuming the ‘peak’-this or ‘peak’-that theories are correct, saying we are at or close to the peak means we’ve got about as much of this or that left as we had to get there, unless ‘peak’ is supposed to mean that the supply simply vanishes overnight. On the contrary, it just costs more to get, which of course makes alternatives (either better ‘getting’ technology, like drilling sideways for oil, or new resources, like creating oil from algae) more attractive. The market is much better at making such decisions than government bureaucrats (not to mention politicians as ignorant as Wax-for-brains and Mass-Malarky).
‘Peak’ hypotheses completely neglect human technological ingenuity, which has been increasing exponentially with the population (maybe it won’t if the neo-Luddites succeed in pulling the plug on civilization). For a terrific disquisition on ‘peak’ and ‘sustainable’ foolishness, see E. M. Smith’s blog (he is a frequent contributor here):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
/Mr Lynn
So are there 100 people that read his Manifesto?
I noticed the part where he tries to use children as human shields. If we don’t obey, our children will die. The kids near the silo also are near dead according to him.
Hansen is starved for attention and his stunt really had bad timing. Watching a pretty lady die in Iran is more relevant than Hansen the exhibitionist trenchcoat wearing geek doing his stunts.
Murray Duffin, help me to understand what you think I am sceptical of. I don’t know if theoildrum.com helped to solidify your argument that we are running out of this or that (shades of Erlich). If it isn’t drilled for I can assure you we will run out. But that is really what is wanted, no? Earth would be a great place to live if it wasn’t for all these people. Or did I miss something?
Murray Duffin (08:02:14) : “Almost everything done to curb CO2 also helps with using energy more effectively and efficiently, or supports development of fossil fuel alternatives.”
How can you say that with a straight face? We have in my own area a coal company promoting “clean coal”, which means they intend to pump the CO2 back deep in the ground. In the process they will wreck the best farming land in Australia and thereby put the food problem into even starker relief. Doing this will require the burning of 30-40% more coal for the same energy, meaning the even faster use of fossil energy. In case you are unaware, ‘clean’ coal is a major growth area and a major new revenue raiser for the coal industry.
CodeTech wrote:
Come on, nev-palidrome… you HAVE to be able to do better than that. You’ve simply repeated all of the half-true leftist talking points. Can you possibly add anything unique, interesting, OR accurate?
What is half true of 3000 American soldiers losing their lives (and one million other persons)? What is half true about the Iraq War costing a little less than 1 trillion of US taxpayer dollars? What is half true about contractors making vast profits based on fraud and corruption?
Please open your eyes and when you have done so: How long will it take for the CO2 farce to attain this amount of wasting the US taxpayer’s money, not to mention all those lives? Assuming that all of AGW is a hoax, which no one can say for sure. I dare not ask, but: What if it isn’t a hoax?
Reply: I was considering editing this, but let’s stop with the Iraq war discussion now please ~ charles the moderator.
Mr. Lynn, Mr. Smith’s arguments are generally right qualitatively, but note that he quantifies nothing. Yes, on average about 65% (range about 20% to 80%) is left in the ground, but all sorts of advanced technologies so far only recover a very small fraction of that, and only at very low flow rates. Good recovery rates might be 3% of original peak flow. Yes in principal the “Hubbert” curve is roughly symetrical, assuming Hubbert period technology. Using new technology, like MRC wells assures, a very asymetrical curve with post peak drop off much faster than prepeak rise. Yes it may be 150 years before supply in old technology peak fields goes to zero, but it can go to 70% of peak in less than 3 years. Post peak decline rates of individual fields are frequently 10% per year or greater. Actual global decline rates of todays producing fields is expected to be about 5%/yr. Can we adjust at that rate without a crisis? I doubt it. Can we adjust? Probably yes, but it will be much better if we start adjusting now.
The problem we face is that oil and NG prices are likely to go to 3 to 5 times what they are now, in the near future, ie before 2012, (at least for North America), and stay there. That is like a major tax increase and can throw a recovering economy into a prolonged recession, or worse. Anything we can do now to mitigate that situation is desireable.
Ron House – I said “almost everything”. You may find one exception, but I seriously doubt if sequestering CO2 underground will have any negative effects on farms. In North America, the major use of sequestration today is to provide tertiary recovery from depleted oil fields.
The simplistic or ill-informed, or misinformed comments above are to peak oil and NG, as the religious warmers are to AGW. You guys deride the AGW true believers, and make the same profession of faith against peak oil. Murray
Murray Duffin, what about the Bakken deposit? That has just become accessible in recent years. What am I basing on faith? You seem to want to maintain that Co2 is a bad thing. To me, that is the crux of what we are discussing. You do a lot of arm waving. Why sequester Co2 at all? Have you read anything on this site? It is you who has to do a lot of pride swallowing and it is your denial that Co2 does NOT drive climate change that is what is at issue. Attempts at distraction from the issue is typical. You have leapt passed a couple of steps. One of the steps being that Co2 drives climate change. There is little evidence to support this as a main driver. Do not attempt to dismiss me as misinformed. I will state again that your basic assumption (regarding Co2 and peak oil ) are where the misinformation and faith lie. You still have not shown your professions to be more than faith based. And you have not answered any of my points. You seem to have been educated beyond your intellect.
David Ball – Please read my comments carefully. I have never suggested that CO2 is a problem, or needs to be sequestered. I am saying that the only effective ways to reduce CO2 are energy efficiency, energy conservation, and nuclear or renewable alternatives to fossil fuel. We will need all of these to deal with the impending fossil fuel energy crisis, so if a belief in the need to reduce CO2 is what is needed to get these advances going, then lets address CO2. It won’t do any harm, and energy-wise will do a lot of good. Opposing this misdirected motivation is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Sequestration is pretty much a side issue, that is not needed energy-wise, except maybe to slow the decline of oil slightly, but does not have to be harmful.
The Bakken is a nice area to develop, but the total amount (EUR) of oil is quite small in world terms, and the rate of recovery will never be great. It will make a small contribution to slowing declines. It has been known for a long time, but has not been worthy of attention until oil prices got high.
I don’t know what I didn’t address. The problem is that “it costs more to get it”, and even at greater cost the amount you get will be in decline. Both oil and NG are very inelastic. Very small changes in the supply/demand balance (like 3%) cause very large price swings (like 2-3X). Greatly increased energy costs, happening quickly, will have severe economic consequences and dislocations. The market will help getting things back in balance after the fact, but acting on knowledge before the fact, to mitigate the worst of the market’s swings, would be good policy, and will not happen w/o government intervention. The climate change bill will provide many of the right actions in advance, even if for the wrong reason. Therefore it is a good idea to support the bill. The forecasts of economic doom from eg “cap and trade” are not based on any sound knowledge. In fact “cap and trade” simply provides a new market mechanism to make the market more effective in driving the necessary actions. We do have a good prior instance of forecasts of doom from a similar mechanism proving to be dead wrong. The USA is grossly inefficient energy-wise, and can get more efficient quite quickly. In general, for corporations, efficiency improvements have quite quick economic paybacks. Cap and trade will encourage such actions. Having been the corporate VP for energy efficiency, among other responsibilities, in a $5B/yr multinational corporation and a consultant for 20+ other factories, and having guided efficiency improvemments of 30% plus with economic paybacks under 3 years for the necessary investments, I know whereof I speak, regardless of your also misguided and groundless opinion of my intellect. Ad hominems seem to be the last resort of those who cannot sustain a discussion.
Oh yeah, – how is your belief that the market will manage things, and your apparent belief that there is no impending oil shortage not “faith based”? Your unwillingness to believe that I am well informed and intellectually capable also must be faith based, since you don’t know me, and won’t sustain a discussion without insults.
Are you the David Ball – Author, or the David Ball – Damages expert, or just David Ball. I couldn’t find any references suggesting that you have expertise in the areas you are insulting me over.
Murray Duffin, glad we agree on nuclear. Cap and trade is going to do more harm than good. Period. It is based on a false premise and provides nothing in return for the investment. In fact it will very likely increase Co2 as corporations will produce more and pass the cost on to the consumer, crippling the economy. It will also line the pockets of some very greedy people who care nothing for you or I or the environment. What is your area of expertise? My understanding of this is from a layman’s perspective, which does not make it less credible. Are you familiar with Paul Erlich’s predictions, none of which came to pass. We are running out of this and the cost is going to be exorbitant on that. I believe we can solve these problems with technology, but we need to have a stable economy and stable energy sources to do that, this has little to do with the “market” at all. you have confused my post with someone else’s. I would love to see us get off oil, as the tar sands are ugly (it wasn’t pretty or viable land before we started digging). If you have ever read any of my posts, you will know that I oppose wastefulness with all of my being. Let us go back to your original post (08:02:14). Your claims of peak energy have not been established with any reasonable credibility. Are you old enough to remember the oil shortage of the ’70’s? We were supposedly running out then, and yet here we are today. That shortage was driven by different factors ( OPEC) and this one is perpetuated by those who are invested in alternative (and highly subsidized) forms of energy, none of which are viable on a large scale. I am against pollution and waste, but I am for common sense. Is this not a better world than the dark ages or the renaissance? We are moving forward. I have lived “off the grid” in Canada, and let me tell you, there is a reason life-spans were so short in the past. If you have children, you would not want them to live that way. You are trying to pidgeon-hole me as one of the wasteful westerners. We live very humbly, recycle and conserve at every opportunity. In regard to the insults, I took offense when you painted all on this blog with a broad brush. Turnabout is fair play after all. You claimed we are running out, and so far you have not cleared that up.
Murray Duffin (06:41:17) :
If we’re running out of oil and natural gas, how come we keep finding more of it? And we’ve scarcely begun exploring undersea. Then we’ve got hundreds of years of coal still in the ground, which can easily be turned into liquid fuels. And of course you can make fuel out of practically anything: trash, algae, etc. For electricity there’s nuclear fission, which we have sorely neglected these past few decades.
The growth of civilization and attendant prosperity and human well-being depend on the availability of cheap, plentiful energy. Government measures which, for whatever reasons, limit the development and use of energy will have precisely the opposite effect.
There are always good reasons for companies and individuals to economize—we all have bottom lines to meet—but for government to artificially and unnecessarily restrict supply is the height of folly. These foolish and irresponsible measures taken in the name of ‘combating climate change’ and other chimeras are going to do nothing but take the wind out of the sails of progress.
If the West falters by falling prey to such nonsense, I guess we can be grateful that the East will take up the slack and keep human progress going. But it will be a great loss, as the East cares not a whit for the individual and his rights.
/Mr Lynn
David Ball – I never claimed we are running out of anything. I claimed that we are very near or past the point when world production of oil will go into decline, irreversibly. Production of oil has been on a “bumpy plateau” since mid 2004, with a first production peak at May 2005, and a second peak at August 2008. Known development projects (see Wikipedia Megaprojects), if they came in as projected (and they rarely do) in mid 2008 were enough to offset declines of existing production and perhaps give us a new peak at about 89 M B/d in 2010. with the sudden post-bubble drop in oil prices in H2 2008, many projects have been delayed or even cancelled. As a result we are probably past peak. All the great reserves that are touted, like oil sands, exist, but there is the issue of stocks and flows. Great stocks, very low flows, so they will not postpone the peak, but may slow the post peak decline a little. FYI global exports of oil exporting countries have been in decline for more than 2 years. the impact of that issue has been masked by the decline in demand in OECD countries caused by the great recession. There is no way we will develop the alternatives you mention in time to offset the declines in oil availability.
Similarly for the USA NG production peaked in late 2002, and declined to late 2006, with a new peak in 2008, resulting from adding 200 drilling rigs a year for 5 years, and developing new ways to generate NG fro “tight sands” and shales. Since Sept 2008 over 800 rigs (more than 50% ) have been idled, and probably 200 of them scrapped. We may get back to Q3 2008 production levels by late 2012, or we may never get back there. In the meantime, economic recovery will again raise demand, and this time supply will not grow in parallel. Look for oil prices north of $150./b and NG prices north of $12/Kcf before the end of 2010, and look for homes being cold in New England by March 2011, and coal won’t save us.
BTW, any reasonable projection of coal use growth has us past peak coal tons before 2050 and probably past peak coal Btus by 2040. We have to make a lot of changes very fast, and it won’t happen without further crisis. Addressing CO2 intelligently has the unintended consequence of mitigating the crisis.
Your opinion on “cap and trade” is just an opinion, and will probably be just as wrong as Erlich. Murray
Mr. Lynn – We haven’t found a giant field (=>500Mb reseves) since 2003. Peak discovery was in the 1960s. You can’t produce what you don’t discover. OPEC reports unchanged reserves year after year, in spite of production, and without major new discoveries. Some interpret that reporting as new discoveries, but it’s just marks on paper. As for coal – no, not hundreds of years. Peak by 2050, and decline to near zero by 2150, unless alternatives replace coal use, which I expect will happen. Coal to liquids doesn’t make sense energetically. electricity from trash won’t be enough to supply more than 2 or 3 quads per year, and we use 100 quads of energy per year. Algae is hopeful but unproven, and is for sure decades away if it ever works. Nuclear fission is good, but also more than a decade away. TSHTF long before a decade. the trouble is that energy has always been so cheap and plentiful that we have not economized, and we can’t do it now overnight. Dream on. Murray
Murray Duffin, you have not shown me that it is necessary to even address Co2 and you have not shown, just stated opinion, that peak oil has passed. Where is your irrefutable proof that we are in decline. Your statements have been regarding production (or lack thereof) and reduced shipping. These have both been hindered by so called green agenda. Your good intentions are paving the road to hell, IMHO. The advent of just one technology, horizontal drilling, opened up HUGE amounts of oil. Again, you have not really addressed Paul Erlich’s predictions ? You are also avoiding addressing the basic assumptions of your argument. Let’s clarify those, because you seem to be attempting to side step the issues. A) Co2 is a problem, if so how? B) Oil depletion is due to environmental restrictions, not depletion of resource. C) What is the result of your agenda? To cripple society and send mankind back to the stone age? D) What do you believe will be the result of Cap and Enslave? Your answer will be opinion only as well, since no one knows for sure. The dirty tactics of Pelosi et al sure seem to indicate that they know what the result will be. But then they are considered “wealthy” and could probably afford the $6,000.00 (at a minimum) cost to every household in the USA. Majority of Americans are just getting by and this is going to sink most of America. Do you have a family? Open your eyes to the devastating cost to the majority people. Or does the end justify the means?
David Ball – Actually horizontal drilling and MRC wells only increase the rate of extraction/depletion. It did nothing to develop more availability. As before you are ill informed. Your view on Cap and Trade is simply parroting, what you accused me of. I have given you facts on oil and NG. check them out for yourself.
Go back and read my posts. I never suggested anywhere that CO2 is a problem. You are so busy disagreeing that you can’t read accurately what was said. Old managemant technoque for avoiding disputes. Play back to your disputant what he said and get him to agree that is what he said before you argue. How about if you provide some proof that oil depletion is due to environmenyal restrictions. The only restrictions I know of are ANWR and the OCS, neither of which will ever flow enough to prevent decline. Do I have to do all the quantification for you. Oh, also for the OCS, more than 40% of the suposed resource areas are open for development now. You don’t see the oil companies rushing in. Same for ANWR, no major lobbying by oil companies. Why not? Because these are no really attractive prospects. the costs of C&T that you provide are pure invention. The OMB has come up with $170./household. Simi;lar numbers were given for the clean air act, and there was no measurable cost in the final analysis. You are simply practising religion, and have difficulty with anyone questioning your faith. You ask for proof. Give some yourself. Murray
If that prediction comes true, the Congress of the United States, and states like California, will be to blame, for restricting off-shore drilling, refinery construction, and atomic power development over the last few decades—not that “we have not economized.”
It is well known that efficiency can (and often does) lead to more consumption, not less. More efficient gizmos mean we can have more gizmos for the same amount of energy—and what’s a few more? It’s fashionable for the eco-nuts these days to complain about all the little power adaptors and warm, stand-by circuitry in our gadgets, which use miniscule amounts of electricity but in the aggregate add up to a lot. Efficiency means we find more ways to use energy, not less; that’s progress, man! Why should we give up instant-on TVs, GPS devices, cell phones, MP3 players, and all the rest? Was life so much better when you had to crank up the phone and ask the operator in town to connect you to your neighbor?
The solution is not more efficiency, though that is always good, but more energy. I don’t know about gigantic oil fields, but Brazil just found some off-shore, and the Russians are about to plant a flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, because they smell petroleum. And some say there’s a trillion barrels more or less in the oil shale in the US and Canada. If there were the will, we could start cranking out turnkey nuclear plants within a decade, too.
If gasoline goes over $4 again, you’ll see the Democrats turned out on their ears, and we’ll get back on the path to cheap, abundant energy again—the path we abandoned three decades ago.
/Mr Lynn
WUWT is the best! Thank you Anthony Watts and the amazing posters here. Your patience with the Luddites of the AGW crowd is terrific and the responses to such verbose tools such as Murray Duffin & Neven is very civilized.
Great collaboration on the US Monitoring Station [snip]and the wacky AGW Climate Models….Thank you for all you do!
rephelen
Meerkat: a mongoose like vivverine of South Africa, having a face like a lemur and only four toes.
You made the claim of “passed peak oil”, and have yet to establish that beyond doubt. I do not think it is possible to make that determination. No one can see the future. “Horizontal wells increase the rate of extraction/depletion”. HUH? Even though those resources were inaccessible previous to the technology of horizontal drilling? I do not follow your reasoning. I have not found the $170.00 per household number in my reading. That certainly is a far cry from my claim of $6000.00 per household. I hope you are right. Is it possible the OMB (slightly biased) might be skewing the numbers in their favor? No, a politician wouldn’t do that, would they? Perhaps you are right, and my perspective is only faith based. Maybe we could meet back here in, say, five years and we can compare notes. Assuming I haven’t sold my computer for food.
@Murray Sandland Duffin:
No new elephant fields, huh?
First, ExxonMobil (March 13,2009) announced the discovery of a huge oil field off the coast of Brazil. The recoverable barrels of oil is estimated at 8 billion. The day of Peak Oil is moving further out, as it always has.
Second, a huge oil field was just discovered in Iraq, with between 2.3 and 4.2 billion barrels of oil. The figure will be improved as more wells are drilled. This qualifies as an elephant field, and again puts the lie to those who say we have passed the peak of oil. Not so. Never have, never will. Imagine the world as a stack of pancakes, and we have just stuck a fork in the upper layer of the top pancake. Such is our situation with drilling for oil. There are lots of pancakes down deeper, and we have not even begun exploration and drilling there.
Regarding natural gas, more natural gas is being liquefied and shipped around the world, so much so that there is a glut of natural gas. The world is swimming in natural gas. More is found almost daily, it seems, in shale formations. Even more is produced from coal beds, known as coal bed methane. The price of natural gas is around $3.5 to $4 per million Btu. On an equivalent basis, a barrel of oil would be $25. So, either natural gas should increase to $8, or oil should drop from around $50 back to around $25. Yet, OPEC is throttling production to prop up prices in the $50 range. They would prefer it be in the $70 to $80 range. As more car owners wise up, and convert their cars to CNG as fuel, the demand for gasoline and diesel will decrease. What a strange turn of events…OPEC countries may go broke, as they cannot raise prices for oil enough to produce the cash flow they must have to support the infrastructure in place. Stay tuned on this one, and watch for massive dis-array within OPEC, as the smaller members cheat and produce more than their quotas.
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2008/09/peak-oil-not-big-deal.html
First, ExxonMobil (March 13,2009) announced the discovery of a huge oil field off the coast of Brazil. The recoverable barrels of oil is estimated at 8 billion.
Daily global oil consumption is 80+ million barrels (and soon to grow again when the economy rebounds as it always does and always will). Let me see. This huge oil field would provide the world with 100 days of oil, right? That means that within 100 days of drilling this huge oil field a new huge oil field has to be found.
Neven,
And there are only 10 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil in ANWR. So we shouldn’t bother getting it. Right? Is that what you’re saying?
In fact, there is more oil available every time new exploration takes place. Alaska is a big, big place, but without exploration, we only know about what’s available in ANWR and a few other fields. And ANWR is only a 3.13 square mile dot on the map: click. [ANWR is the tiny red square.]
Think of the
possiblyprobably trillions of barrels of oil in Alaska and off the coast of Alaska. And there are trillions of barrels of oil under the continental shelf. And many billions more in the Dakotas.The problem is NOT a lack of oil. The problem is the enviro movement, and the Representatives and Senators they own lock, stock and barrel.
Oil can be extracted with minimal environmental risk [that’s obvious, because when the inevitable little spill happens once or twice a year, the media has a conniption fit, and runs to groups like Greenpeace to get their quotes]. But much more oil is emitted naturally from natural seeps than all the oil ever spilled by mankind, doubled and squared.
So explain to us: why should we not make use of the really enormous amounts of domestic oil that are available?
Neven, and any others who have a belief in peak oil:
If you truly believe we are at or past the peak of oil production, then you should make a fortune investing in crude oil futures.
Let us know how that works out.
Your premise is invalid. You’re assuming ALL the world’s oil would be coming form this one field. There are hundreds if not thousands of such fields.
Some data on crude oil prices, both real and nominal, may be found at the EIA database at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html
The interesting chart is the top chart for gasoline price, dating from 1919. Note that “peak oil” was cried out by alarmists many times during the entire period (1919 – 2008).
Never happened. (gasoline would have been $10 to $20 per gallon in a post-peak-oil scenario…clearly that has never happened).
Never will.
Well, ‘never’ is a bit of hyperbole. The oil under the Earth’s crust may after all be finite, and some may prove way too difficult (i.e. expensive) to get with any foreseeable technology (realizing that a hundred years ago much of our present technology could not have been foreseen). But by then the market will come up with plenty of alternatives.
Let’s get rid of the CO2 bugaboo and start growing the US economy—and the world’s economy—once again. Drill, baby, drill!
/Mr Lynn
PS Re foreseeable technology: It is not hard to imagine robotic tunneling and drilling machines capable of working under high pressures and temperatures, e.g. beneath the ocean floors. These could be run from engineers sitting in shirtsleeves on beachfront porches, sipping piña coladas. That’s 4/5th of the earth’s surface that hasn’t been explored yet.
If I can foresee these, think of what else might come down the pike—er, pipe! Genetically-engineered deep-sea mining creatures, anyone?
/Mr Lynn