SI
SI

 Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: teevee who wrote (27731)8/21/2011 4:26:46 PM
From: miraje1 Recommendation   of 40804
 
wind and solar = bankruptcy

Add ethanol to that list. They're all subsidized toys and an indulgence for healthy economies, which are in short supply these days. What the world needs now is more inexpensive and efficient energy sources that work, to get growth going again.

If and when all the "green" stuff pencils out, then it will make sense. Under current conditions, throwing scarce public funds at inefficient and uneconomic pipe dreams is just plain stupid..

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: miraje who wrote (27732)8/21/2011 5:11:20 PM
From: teevee   of 40804
 
Add ethanol to that list.

I agree, however, ethanol is pork barrel politics-vote buying, and at a high cost per vote......

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar898/21/2011 6:08:09 PM
2 Recommendations   of 40804
 
2004: WWF said Hudson Bay polar bears to be finished by next yr:

...
Assuming the current rate of ice shrinkage and accompanying weight loss in the Hudson Bay region, bears there could become so thin by 2012 they may no longer be able to reproduce, said Lara Hansen, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund.

"Once the population stops reproducing, that's pretty much the end of it," Hansen said.
....
washingtonpost.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Eric who wrote (27670)8/21/2011 6:24:32 PM
From: Brumar89   of 40804
 
Is It "Fleeing Species" From Global Warming? Or, Is It "Fleeing Journalists" From Objective Science Reporting?

Read here. The news media this past week made a huge to-do of a new study claiming that species across the world were fleeing geographical locations due global warming. While immediately trumpeting this story as new and significant, the actual truth indicates this study is just warmed-up, leftover garbage from a previous study by the same "scientist."

If the press wasn't so adverse to doing even an internet investigation before publishing 'press release' research, they would have found the following about the previous study by this researcher:

" What no one seems to realize or remember is that things turned out rather badly the last time [Chris D.] Thomas’ work was similarly fêted by journalists...Nature published three separate critiques of the 2004 Thomas paper six months afterward. These were followed by challenges in other publications – including a 6,000-word evisceration by a conservation biologist at Oxford University...Daniel Botkin, who is described as “one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century” similarly lambasted the 2004 Thomas paper – both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as on his own blog. He’s called that study “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

As the story indicates, again it's the blogger community that is doing the investigative reporting because the mainstream press is either to lazy and/or stupid - in essence, the MSM continues to publish climate change "science" garbage without any fact checking.

c3headlines.com 




The Backstory to the ‘Fleeing Species’ Claim August 21, 2011


photo from Chris D. Thomas' academic bio page


In early 2004 Nature, a respected science journal, ran a cover story titled Feeling the Heat: biodiversity losses due to global warming. As one critic would later observe:

It is rare for a scientific paper to be the lead item on the evening news, or to fill the front pages of our national newspapers, but [that particular study] received exceptional worldwide media attention.

The lead author was named Chris D. Thomas. Now he’s back in the news – this time for a paper published in Science whose very own press release begins:

Many different species of plants and animals have been moving higher in elevation and farther away from the equator to escape the Earth’s warming climate.

Once more, the media is all over the story – and the headlines are nothing if not dramatic. The BBC declares that species are fleeing a warm climate faster than previously thought. Time magazine tells us that climate change is turning plants and animals into refugees. CNN asserts that animals are being driven to higher ground by warmth. (Lots more news stories may be seen here.)

What no one seems to realize or remember is that things turned out rather badly the last time Thomas’ work was similarly fêted by journalists. (Although Thomas’ name isn’t listed first on the Science article, both the BBC and CNN say he led the project.)

I’m familiar with the 2004 Thomas paper because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chose to base its 2007 species extinction predictions on this work despite the fact that it had already been thoroughly trashed by other experts.

Nature published three separate critiques of the 2004 Thomas paper six months afterward. These were followed by challenges in other publications – including a 6,000-word evisceration by a conservation biologist at Oxford University. (See my blog post here.)

Daniel Botkin, who is described as “one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century” similarly lambasted the 2004 Thomas paper – both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as on his own blog. He’s called that study “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

He explains (see the comment dated March 9, 2008):

First, the paper uses a theory that is inappropriate and illogical for the question. Second, the data on which the calculations are based — the areas of the world’s biomes — are crude, lacking estimates of measurement error. My textbook Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet has a chapter on the scientific method in which I state that “a measurement without a statement about its degree of uncertainty is meaningless.”

In other words, Thomas’ track record is, shall we say, problematic. It would seem that many of his peers hold his work in less-than-high regard. Six months from now it may be Science‘s turn to publish three critiques of this new paper.

But journalists won’t even notice. So we won’t hear a word about it.

(In this case, Bryan Walsh over at Time magazine bizarrely mentions “[a]n influential 2004 paper in Nature” regarding species extinction. He also mentions that its conclusions are disputed. But he neglects to point out to his readers that Thomas is responsible for both pieces of scholarship.)

Until some amount of time has passed we have no way of knowing whether the quality of this new Thomas paper is any better than his previously notorious effort.

But that didn’t stop Science from issuing a press release. And, like so many lap dogs, journalists have reported Thomas’ new findings as though they are well-established.

In reality, this research hasn’t even been read by the larger scientific community yet – never mind withstood its collective scrutiny.

Indeed, the history of this particular researcher says there’s good reason to be concerned about the quality of these findings. But the media hasn’t alerted you to these facts, has it?

nofrakkingconsensus.com 


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Eric who wrote (27670)8/21/2011 6:52:05 PM
From: teevee1 Recommendation   of 40804
 
Global warming runs out of gas

nationalpost.com 

Rex Murphy, National Post · Aug. 20, 2011 | Last Updated: Aug. 20, 2011 3:06 AM ET



For those who have a wish to hear the grating sound of a man distempered and frustrated that the cause for which he has given at least a decade of his time, the "greatest moral challenge of our time," is lost, I recommend listening to Al Gore as he was captured during an address at an Aspen global warming conference two weeks ago. It is a revelation.

Mr. Gore is not a happy Jeremiah. You hear him on the tape near rage, repeatedly shouting "bulls--t" over the arguments of his critics. He raves about conspiracy - a rebirth of the tactics of the dreaded tobacco industry of a few decades back. He blames "media manipulation" for the refusal of people to take up his gloomy summons. He hisses at "volcanoes and sunspots" as having much or anything to do with climate. "Bulls--!" he cries over and over - perhaps it's the methane content that has him mesmerized with the word. Listen to this aria: "They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes.' Bulls-t! 'It may be sun spots.' Bulls--t! 'It's not getting warmer.' Bulls--t!"

Can a person win the Nobel Peace prize twice? I surely hope so, for this is the E=mc² moment of our green time.

It is not a pretty display. The question the sorry little rant calls up is whether, in its way, this temper fit was a signal that the great global warming crusade, that has had such a sweet run for the last decade or more, is finally over. Has it run, so to speak, out of gas?

The signs are everywhere that it has. Here in Canada, for example, how far are we from those days when Stéphane Dion was the freshly-minted leader of the Liberal party, having ascended to that dubious altitude largely on the pledge that he was going to build a "green" Canada. It was telling that within the Liberal party at that time featly to a drastic and nebulous green agenda was enough to grab the leadership prize away from the perceived stronger candidates, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. As so often happens, however, much as they are embraced by celebrities and touted by inside "experts," when so-called green politics are placed before the people those politics and the people who espouse them are forcefully rejected.

Some five or so years later, not a little of Stephen Harper's success in gaining a majority government came from refusing to engage, in any serious and convincing manner, with the politics of the planet-savers. Political correctness dictates some tepid genuflection towards the obsession with a warming planet, but Harper - and people know this - can be counted on not to jump on the carbon-counting express. He can be counted on to not bend in the face of the manufactured fury presented by professional activists and environmentalists, either to slow or stop the oil sands or introduce some ludicrous and wasteful "tax" on carbon dioxide. And while it may be a footnote to the national trend, Rob Ford's election as mayor of Toronto can also be read, in part, as a rebuke to the previous mayor's incessant tinkering with "environmental" measures - from plastic bag surcharges to bike lanes - at the expense of more basic municipal functions.

These are merely the local Canadian signals. But one can skip the globe and find almost everywhere that govern-ments, staring at the reality of recession and financial anxiety, have given up on their vague projections of green economics. Where is President Obama, who promised that on his accession "the rise of the oceans will start to slow and the planet begin to heal?" - surely the most fatuous declaration in the history of politics. Well, he appears to be giving speeches every second day, but none of them feature the retreating oceans or our healed planet.

In fact he's been tooling around in a $2-million bus oblivious of the carbon costs, and there simply hasn't been any signal that his White House is giving the great Gore crusade anything but the barest of rhetorical support. If there were any political value to ardent greensmanship, surely a President who is floundering on the economy and sinking in the polls would have grabbed that raft with a passion.

But there isn't anymore. Perhaps the recession has tamed the imaginations of most people and their governments. In tight economic times people are naturally unwilling to engage in the comicbook fantasies of the wilder environmentalists. Perhaps Climategate gave a too-souring glimpse into the mixture of science and advocacy that has, to some extent, corrupted both. Perhaps, finally, the unctuousness, sanctimony and sputtering righteousness of the highprofile environmentalists signal to most observers that they aren't really as certain of all this "science" as they pretend to be. Either way this long green game has lost its fundamental energies. The celebrities will find another wristband; the politicians will find a new vague distraction.

For that, Mr. Gore himself has a lot of blame to carry. His own "sputtering righteousness" and his adolescent barks of "bulls--t" to his critics may be a reverse of the Obama declaration. Gore's meltdown might just be the moment when the people of the planet saw the carney show for what it was.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: FUBHO who wrote (27729)8/21/2011 7:04:18 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation   of 40804
 
XOM & Statoil have 50% interests in the leases with XOM being the operator. They drilled two wells but they don't have a way to get oil out yet ... their plans were to drill more wells and tie them into a CVX production facility a few miles away. The discovery was only made in 2008, they applied for an extension later that year and in Feb 2009 the extension was turned down.

Get this. There were originally 3 lease blocks involved - those three are the ones being denied extension. When they applied for the extension, the MMS (the government agency involved, now the BOEMRE) said they should lease two more adjacent blocks as well. So they bought those leases for $60M and put in another extension request including those two blocks. Now if they didn't have plans to develop those blocks why did they fork over another $60M for those adjacent blocks when requested? Why did they drill a second well in 2008?

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=110309&rss=true


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


StatoilHydro, ExxonMobil JV: Significant GOM Discovery with Julia



by Rigzone Staff
|
Rigzone
|
Tuesday, January 08, 2008



3 D Seismic Survey Area


ExxonMobil and StatoilHydro have hit it big with the Julia well in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The joint venture discovered hydrocarbons about 265 miles southwest of New Orleans, La.

"This is a promising oil discovery," said Helen Butcher, StatoilHydro's exploration manager for deepwater Gulf of Mexico. "StatoilHydro is a major lease holder in Walker Ridge. This discovery supports our firm belief in this area."

Drilling to a total depth of 9,500 meters, the Julia well is located in 2,000 meters of water. More appraisal drilling is planned for 2008 to further define the extent of the Julia discovery.

This is the first well drilled for the joint venture, which was formed in 2005 to explore deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

This is the first well drilled for the joint venture, which was formed in 2005 to explore deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
....
rigzone.com 


.....

Exxon and its partner Statoil ASA spent more than $300 million drilling two "producible" wells on the Julia prospect.

As part of its development strategy, Exxon was planning to drill three to six development wells and join them to a planned production facility operated by Chevron Corp located about eight miles away, according to the company's lawsuit.
....
The Interior decision marks the first time the agency has determined that a production facility will enable development when the lessee owns the production facility, but will not facilitate development when the lessee does not own the production facility, Exxon said in its complaint.
.....
news.yahoo.com 



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Brumar898/21/2011 7:20:04 PM
   of 40804
 
Sharks join aliens in their bloody fight against AGW


Yesterday, we learned that Al Gore's extraterrestrial environmentalist pals are preparing a friendly but lethal attack against the Earth in which they will annihilate us.



Some heretics have expressed doubts about the aliens' capacity to resuscitate the Kyoto protocols and cap-and-trade bills. However, during the last 24 hours, aliens have built a broader coalition - The Axis of Blood and Gore - that has started the war on humans, the main culprits responsible for the global warming in the Milky Way.

As AFP and Discovery News tell us today,
Humans may be to blame for shark attacks
Air travel, overfishing Much like the little green men, sharks are also and global warming are all seen as contributing to the uptick in shark attacks.


Much like the little green men, sharks are carefully observing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It goes up by nearly 2 ppm every year so the sharks determined that the rise of CO2 is due to humans, it could cause global warming, and they decided to increase their attacks against the humans. Sharks are smart enough not to be fooled by the constant or dropping temperatures of the seawater. They know that global warming is real despite the non-increasing temperatures. The consensus is stronger than any thermometers: 197% of the experts agree that the global warming doomsday is coming.

Every good environmentalist should support our friends sharks so that they kill as many CO2 emitters - especially the pilots, CEOs of Big Oil companies, and fishers - as possible.

....
motls.blogspot.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: teevee who wrote (27725)8/21/2011 8:17:35 PM
From: mindmeld   of 40804
 
I do understand it. You and I just have different opinions on what the correct actions are to resolve the problems this country faces right now. I believe Keynesian policies are more heroin that will kill the patient and lead us to an inevitable economic collapse stemming from a collapse in faith in our currency and solvency. You believe Keynesian policies of borrow and spend, and printing more money, and continued excessive debt are the solution to the debt crisis we find ourselves in.

I understand why you may be so inclined, given the constant drumbeat of Keynesian believers in this country. However, it is dead wrong and has already proven to be so. Therefore, continuing the same Keynesian policies and hoping for a different result seems foolish to me, if not outright insane.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: mindmeld who wrote (27739)8/21/2011 9:03:36 PM
From: teevee   of 40804
 
I will make it even simpler for you to understand: as the world population grows, and 3rd world economies emerge, more money is needed to fund that growth. As the international trade settlement currency is the US dollar, more US dollars are needed. With debt deflation, even more US dollars are needed. This isn't just a US problem, it is a global economic problem. This is why a very large portion of the money printed for QE II an III went to off shore banks. Unfortunately, and probably due to the US education system and the US media being so provincial, most Americans are truly ignorant of the scale of the problem and the scale of the remedies.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric who wrote (27719)8/22/2011 1:58:53 AM
From: CrashJPMorgan   of 40804
 
Fukushima – China Syndrome — The Worst Case Scenario Is Happening

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.