• stopmediabias said on May 14, 2008....

  That is a great article, especially when he mentions climate models. 

  "Even though all climate models DO contain the "average effects" of precipitation systems -- this is NOT the same as knowing how precipitation systems will act to stabilize (or destabilize) the climate system in the presence of the warming influence of manmade greenhouse gas emissions."

   I think this is very important.  A lot of Al's assumtions are made from climate models which I think is where a lot of the hysteria comes from.

  I also have noticed and it has been sited by a lot of other smart people is the pressure to follow the "group think."

  "there is an element of "group think" that keeps scientific biases entrenched in the research community as a whole."

  One of the things I also find interesting is look at the graph that shows temps from 1850-2007.  It shows the temps straight up but then look at the graph that shows 2000 years of temps, it is not as grave as the green people put out.  I don't understand how we can cause all this warming when long before cars and factories and SUV's there was a warming that was greater than anything we've seen in modern times.

  I wouldn't expect bloc to read this article, it is actually quite interesting and doesn't fall in line with Al's line of thinking.
  
  

• pickersplock said on May 14, 2008....

  I'm glad you posted this too D6.  Very cool!  LOL  No pun intended!

• brit said on May 14, 2008....

  whoa there d! that's a big article for a girl about to leave for work to get involved with! LOL
  
  I'll catch ya later!
  

• starchini said on May 14, 2008....

  I think u and i are on the same side of all this stuff dicksfer.  : )  Good post.  100%agreement... : )

• bloc said on May 14, 2008....

  it's very hard to take you and SMB seriously. Here is a quote used by smb!
  
  
  "... the climate system in the presence of the warming influence of manmade greenhouse gas emissions."
  
  
  This is why I constantly ask you two for a coherent view of the climate. You link articles that not only contradict each other, but they contradict your own statements. 
  
  
  @smb
  "I don't understand how we can cause all this warming when long before cars and factories and SUV's there was a warming that was greater"
  
  
  Do you really not understand why this statement of yours is illogical? 
  
  
  Here is a very simple question for both of you. Does this scientist believe that man can't cause catastrophic warming? Does he believe that our CO2 output does not cause warming? 

• bloc said on May 14, 2008....

  I've read the whole article, and some of his other writings. Here is the strongest statement he makes.
  
  
  "I predict that further research will reveal some other cause for most of the warming we have experienced since the 1970's"
  
  
  So, to sum up, he thinks that our understanding of the environment is too weak to make such bold predictions about global warming, that CO2 does cause warming but it's mitigated by the environment, and that he really has no idea why the earth is warming. 
  
  
  This is good science, he's not saying that global warming is a big hoax or any of the other outlandish claims that you guys make on a regular basis. Most importantly, he doesn't say "there is no way that we can cause global warming". 
  
  
  If anything this article should humble you guys as much as the global warming hypers. 

• stopmediabias said on May 14, 2008....

  Bloc-nice of you to take that quote grossly out of context.

  "Even though all climate models DO contain the "average effects" of precipitation systems -- this is NOT the same as knowing how precipitation systems will act to stabilize (or destabilize) the climate system in the presence of the warming influence of manmade greenhouse gas emissions"

  Try actually reading the entire quote in context.  If man has a warming influence from our manmade greenhouse gas emissions do precipitation systems act to stablilze or destabilize the climate system?  He was alluding to the fact climate models cannot predict this.

  You are yet to answer one single logical question.  The massive contradiction is the fact that all these global warming fanatics say our behavior is causing the planet to warm to supposed dangerous levels when the evidence conveniently left out of Al's movie shows that long before there was even cars the planet warmed up to greater than it ever has been.

   
   
   

• bloc said on May 14, 2008....

  you're not making any sense. The fact that the earth can warm without human causes does not mean it can't warm due to human causes. This is really simple logic, and I'm stunned to still don't get it. 
  
  
  The context doesn't change my point at all. He is implying that human activity can cause warming, and that we don't know how the system will react to that warming. This is what I've been saying the whole time, and the opposite of what you keep saying (assuming what you say makes any sense at all).

• stopmediabias said on May 14, 2008....

  The problem with your side is you've all ready made the gravest assumptions and will not back down when those assumptions are proven wrong time and time again.  We don't know how a massive warming of the earth will stabilize or destabilize the system but don't you think we should reach even close to dangerous levels before we start things like Kyoto?

• D6fer said on May 14, 2008....

  bloc....you have immersed yourself emotionally into man made global warming.....you are too much of a computer geek....you think that everything can be solved or figured out by a computer.....that must be why you think that all these climate models are the gospel.....but you are so wrong.
  
  I've read the whole article, and some of his other writings. Here is the strongest statement he makes.
  
  This is one of the most egotistical statements I have ever heard!....who are you again?.....you are judging the work of one of the greatest climate scientists of our time!
  
  

• bloc said on May 14, 2008....

  "that must be why you think that all these climate models are the gospel"
  
  
  I don't think they are the gospel at all. I know the limits of computation better than most people. It's fascinating that you and smb seem to miss my point entirely. Did you even consider what I said or did you go into defense mode immediately. 
  
  
  Let me say this clearly. This scientist contradicts many of the things you and smb have said! This scientist that you linked to does not say in any way that man made global warming is a hoax. In fact he says something I've been trying to tell you for a very long time. He says that increasing CO2 causes warming, at least in the short term, and that we don't really know how the environment reacts to it. He thinks the environment will compensate for it, but he hasn't shown this in any conclusive manner which he admits. 
  
  
  He goes on to say that he doesn't think man made green house gases have caused the warming trend we're in (another contradiction of your and smb's claims) and that he believes (with no science behind it) that we'll find another explanation. 
  
  
  So let's recap:
  1. he says that green house gases cause warming (contradicts you and smb)
  2. he believes that the climate will compensate for this warming and keep the temperature steady, but he has no conclusive science for this belief. In fact he has less evidence than the limited models used to predict global warming
  3. he says that the climate is in a warming trend (another contradiction from you and smb)
  4. he believes that there is an explanation for it other than man made causes, but doesn't know what that explanation is (contradicts some of your claims, that there is conclusive proof that the sun is causing it.
  
  
  Again, this is why I can't take you seriously on this issue. You link things without an understanding of what they actually say. You link things that contradict other links you've given. It's clear that your the one emotionally "immersed" with the faith that we aren't causing any harm to the climate. This is clear because you have no coherent views on the climate and you link anything that questions man made causes even when they contradict other things you've linked. 
  
  
  So, do you believe this link, or the other ones you've linked in the past that contradict this one? What in the world do you actually think about this issue? I'm asking in ernest. 
  
  
  
  

• brit said on May 14, 2008....

  ***dropping by to check out the scene****
  
  ***not taking sides***
  
  ***running for cover!***
  
  (no offense! )
  

• D6fer said on May 14, 2008....

  I said what I think in the introduction.....this is one of the best articles I have come across....this guy knows what he's talking about and he does a great job of explaining it.....it's unfortunate that you still don't get it.
  

• bloc said on May 15, 2008....

  i find it fascinating that you avoid talking about the details of this issue. Here is what you said in the intro:
  
  
  "This is one of the best articles that I've read on climate change and it's causes."
  
  
  So what is his conclusion on it's causes? 

• stopmediabias said on May 15, 2008....

  Bloc-I have never said that greenhouse gasses do not cause warming nor have I have ever said we are in a cooling trend.

  Here's the problem:

  "2. he believes that the climate will compensate for this warming and keep the temperature steady, but he has no conclusive science for this belief. In fact he has less evidence than the limited models used to predict global warming"

  This is why D6 sites this guy because this right here shatters everything Al and his minions have been preaching to us.  In this guys opinion we aren't going to have to start building an ark.  

   

• D6fer said on May 15, 2008....

  99.99995% nature.......00005% man made

• bloc said on May 15, 2008....

  it only "shatters" current thought if there is some measurable basis for this opinion. As he honestly points out there isn't. He clearly implies that the earth is warming and says that he thinks we'll find some other explanation for it. But, he has no measurable proof that there is another cause! 
  
  
  His mere opinion doesn't shatter anything and I'm guessing he'd be the first to admit that. 

• bloc said on May 15, 2008....

  @d6
  this link makes it clear that there isn't measurable proof that your 99.99999% idea is the case. He says that he thinks there is some other cause, but that he doesn't know what it is or have any measurable evidence of it. This scientist is honest about that which is why I can't for the life of me understand why you linked to it. Maybe you are trying to make your own position look less certain than you claim it to be?

• D6fer said on May 15, 2008....

  I said 99.99995%....that's actually rounded down....that's what you get when you figure what percentage of greenhouse gas man puts in the atmosphere compared to nature itself.....I heard a really good audio of a climate scientist yesterday on Michael Savage......he talked about how much C02 was thrust into the atmosphere some 72,000 years ago after a super volcanic eruption......it dwarfed anything man could ever produce....and the earth healed just fine....it has happened many times in history.

• stopmediabias said on May 16, 2008....

  bloc-ah but according to your side the debate is all ready settled, there is a "consensus" and anyone who disagrees is shunned and called things like the equivalent to halocaust deniers.

  D6-That is a interesting point that I've noticed is absent in a lot of the debate.  Look all the volcanic eruptions in our history and compare this to anything we have put into the atomosphere, it pales in comparison.

  And sorry D6 but Michael Savage is a lieing asshole.

• ALIENated said on May 16, 2008....

  
  This is amusing, that we waste so much time on this subject. Our enemies
  must be laughing their asses off. We argue about stupid stuff like this while
  our borders are being compromised and terrorists plan their next attack. Or
  do they? We are so preoccupied with global warming nonsense and gay
  marriage, they probably do not even need to attack us again. We are doing
  a pretty good job of destroying ourselves. We all care about our environment.
  It is just a matter of degree. I see Al Gwhore getting rich off the subject.
  What do you expect him to say? Do you expect liberals to listen to anyone
  that contradicts their position ... on anything? Liberals go to college and
  get a little education, then they think they know everything. I got a lot
  of education, which taught me that I know very little. I do know we need
  to respect our environment in any way we can, but we should refrain from
  turning it into a political issue. Listen to McCain, trying to get on the band
  wagon. Most of this discussion is about hindering growth, hindering businesses,
  stopping Americans from being free to do what they want. I say punish
  businesses that are blatantly polluting the environment and give people
  incentives to buy cleaner burning engines. But liberals do not want to hear
  all that. They want to use global warming to promote the United Nations
  and their one-world government. It really is not about the environment for
  them. It is about power over others ... as usual. So it really does not matter
  to them what scientists say, unless the scientists agree with what they
  are saying. I wonder what the Muslim view is on all this. After all, it only
  matters what they think since we have our heads up our butts and they
  will soon be in control of the world, not the United Nations.
  
  

• bloc said on May 16, 2008....

  @smb
  I'm unsure why you are incapable of having an honest debate. I don't compare anyone that disagrees with the consensus to a holocaust denier. In fact, in this thread for everyone to see I've been very open to the scientist linked to in d6's post. I haven't smeared him or called in any sort of negative names. 
  
  
  you are the one who can only debate by calling me names and lying about my views so that you can argue against a strawman.

• D6fer said on May 16, 2008....

  smb......why do you think MS is a liar?
  
  Alien......we are destroying ourselves! I did a post about it here!
  
  bloc......you call that being open? ;p
  
  
  
  

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  in what way have I not been open. I haven't said that he's lying, that he's biased, or that he's flat out wrong. All I've done is repeat his position to you which you apparently don't agree with.

• D6fer said on May 17, 2008....

  I do agree with him.....I know what you are trying to get me to say bloc.....and maybe I need to rephrase my position: Man made global warming is insignificant.
  There, that is my base position.
  

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  Here's one clear example of how this guy contradicts you and smb. In another post you and SMB argued with certainty that the earth is cooling not warming. This guy clearly implies that the earth is in a warming trend. So which do you agree with, your own previous statements or this guy?

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  Here is another example, you argued with certainty that the sun is causing the warming we are seeing (notice how this contradicts your certainty that the earth is cooling) and this guy admits very clearly that there is no conclusive evidence to what the cause of warming is if it isn't man made!
  
  
  So which do you agree with, your previous statement (which contradicts your other previous statements) or this guy?

• D6fer said on May 17, 2008....

  Are you saying that the data never changes?......research into this and anything else continues to change data daily.....as far as the cooling trend goes, that appears to have just happened.....his research spans previous centuries.....I don't see any contradiction that can be explained.
  Oh.....and the sun? it is completely causing all warming......if it went out....we'd freeze! ;p
  

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  it's sad you can't have an honest discussion. Like the way you avoid your contradictions about the sun or cooling.
  
  
  So what do you believe, that the earth is cooling? Are you certain that variations in the suns activity certainly caused the warming trend we are or were in? What about the fact that this guy doesn't believe the evidence is conclusive on that point?

• D6fer said on May 17, 2008....

  what is not honest? I believe we just had one of the coolest years in the past couple of decades, and if the trend continues, then yes....it will be cooling....anyone with a thermometer can do that research.
  I believe that since all life and energy on earth is a direct result of the suns energy that it could definitely be the largest contributing factor to the changes in the temperature here on earth.....what is so hard to grasp about that?
  
  What I find dishonest is the fact that you won't admit that there are people out there trying to cash in on all of this.....and to create personal power for themselves......politics makes strange bedfellows.....and the liberals and democrats are having an orgy!
  

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  
  
  
  
  "I believe we just had one of the coolest years in the past couple of decades, and if the trend continues, then yes....it will be cooling"
  
  
  This is wrong and contradicts what you've said in the past. In the past you've claimed with certainty that we are in a cooling trend as proof that global warming is fake. You've also claimed that global warming is real and that it's due to the sun. You constantly link to people and say things that contradict your past posts.
  
  
  "What I find dishonest is the fact that you won't admit that there are people out there trying to cash in on all of this"
  
  
  Like oil companies?

• stopmediabias said on May 17, 2008....

  bloc-I'm a little lost here, you seem to repeatedly link me to saying there is a cooling trend.  I've have only pointed out that there have been record low temps everywhere.  You guys have claimed our CO2 emissions are heating up the globe to the point it is dangerous.  We still have a lot of CO2 going into the atomosphere but in certain areas the temps are going down not up. 

  There is also the fact where I am in the Northeast the winters before this most recent were very mild.  I remember a 50 degree day in January.  This past winter here was harsh.  It was very cold, snowy, and a very nasty winter.  Whichever trend we are in if Al is right the winters would keep being very mild not harsh.  It was not you who came out with the holocaust denier remark, I wasn't referring to you.

  D6- Savage is a Michael Moore, only way over to the extreme right.  He makes us look bad.  I've heard him call Obama a Muslim and I've heard him call him Barry Hussien.  This kind of shit makes us look as bad as the Moore's of the world.  Believe me, I'm no Obama fan and I think we have enough reasonable things to discredit him for the Presidency and the stuff Savage espouses will only make Obama look like a victim and take the emphasis away from where it belongs.

  Alien-It is interesting that if you ask a Conservative what is the greatest threat   and they will say Islamic terrorism but ask a Liberal and they will say global warming, no wait it is not global warming it is "climate change" now.

   

   

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  @smb
  thanks for the thoughtful answer. Do you remember the graphs I put in the thread about the cooling? It showed how there was one year that was way way way hotter than all the other years. The years with the "record lows" were only low compared to that fluke year, but as you can see on the graphs those "low" years are actually warmer than the years before, and were only low compared to that fluke year. 

• bloc said on May 17, 2008....

  Here are the graphs again. Notice that the years that had "record lows" are not in fact record low years!
  

• sheltercrow said on May 17, 2008....

  
  Roy Spencer is just another Corporate Shill
  
  Spencer and the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance"
  
  Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, the ISA is "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development."
  
  In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming (pdf). Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have recieved a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.
  
  The other authors of the ISA's report were Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen and Ross McKitrick .
  
  Satellite Research Refuted
  
  According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was ocurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
  
  “These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
  
  Spencer and the Heartland Institute
  
  Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institiute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
  
  The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exagerrating the health threats of smoking.
  
  Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute
  
  Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
  
  Spencer and Tech Central Station
  
  Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.

• D6fer said on May 17, 2008....

  sheltercrow.......oh great! now with all this hot air you are spewing....we will certainly have global warming!.....evidently you didn't read the link above.....Dr. Spencer puts those false claims to rest.......nice try though.

• sheltercrow said on May 17, 2008....

  
  Great Credentials from Rush Limbaugh...
  
  A Dispatch from Roy Spencer
  
  RUSH: I got a note here from our official climatologist Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville. He is a genuine scientist and has been doing some research...
  
  rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080907/content/01125111.guest.html
  
  Global Warming Update: Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth
  
  We're talking with Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville, also a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA ...
  
  rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/01125102.guest.html
  
  
  
  From exxonsecrets.org
  
  Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics.
  
  FACTSHEET: Roy W. Spencer
  
  DETAILS
  
  Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
  
  Science Roundtable Member, Tech Central Station. Scientific Advisor, Interfaith Stewardship Council.
  
  Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. TCS bio: http://www.techcentralstation.com/020604C.html
  
  KEY QUOTES
  
  26 February, 2007
  "The media is, almost by definition, most interested in extreme views on the issue, so reporting seldom reveals that broad scientific uncertainty still exists."
  Source: New York Post 2/26/07
  
  17 April, 2006
  "We are not saying that we don't believe that there can be significant global warming. As John [Christy] said, if you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway. The big question is: So what? How much is it going to change, compared to other things? And what can you do about it?"
  Source: George Marshall Institute Roundtable April 2006
  
  19 April, 2007
  "We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves. ... I don't think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the (climate) models, we know it happens, but we don't know for sure how it happens."
  Source: The Huntsville Times, April 19, 2007
  
  2 May, 2007
  "Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change."
  Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
  
  KEY DEEDS
  
  8 March, 2007
  Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
  Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)
  
  25 July, 2006
  Co-author of Interfaith Stewardship Alliance report critical of the Evangelical Climate Initiative's Call To Action urging a swift response to global warming. The ISA letter argues that "the most prudent response is not to try (almost certainly unsuccessfully and at enormous cost) to prevent or reduce whatever slight warming might really occur." They suggest adaptation instead.
  Source: Interfaith Stewarship Alliance website (2007)
  
  2 May, 2007
  Appeared in Glenn Beck's May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"
  Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007
  

• D6fer said on May 17, 2008....

  uh....no.....spencer provides the info in the link.....see you just click on it and then you can read it....use the left button on your mouse.....push it with your finger....and wala!

• sheltercrow said on May 17, 2008....

  "ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have in the past cooperated with one or more conservative think tanks which have been known to be partially funded by Exxon-Mobil. But the extent of my involvement has only been to give lectures, when asked -- just as I have given lectures for several state environmental organizations."
   
  He admits he gave lectures when asked by "one or more conservative think tanks which have been known to be partially funded by Exxon-Mobil."

• sheltercrow said on May 17, 2008....

  Here he defends his position by stating...
  
  "After 12 years of receiving no compensation for my writings, I was eventually asked to write global warming related articles for TechCentralStation.com (now TCSDaily.com). That website advocated science, technology, and free markets, and was indeed partially funded by Exxon Mobil."
  
  
  Nick Gardner nicholasgard...@nospambtinternet.com
  
  Is this written by the same Roy Spencer, a well known right-wing Christian/Evangelist who believes in Intelligent Design?
  
  I like the way how he can say that climate scientists fail to see the 'bigger picture' whilst he alone can. Of course, when he refers to the 'bigger picture' he is referring to his faith and his relationship with his god and not the science.
  
  Isn't Spencer also involved with the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), an industry supporting conservative 'think-tank' which has received large donations from oil companies such as $80,000 from Exxon Mobil in the recent past.
  
  And wasn't Spencer allied with John Christy? Together they released a study in 2003 using faulty calculations that purported to show temperatures in the troposphere had remained constant over the previous two decades.
  
  Spencer's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature which is often not peer-reviewed, that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not.
  ________________
  Nick G
  Otter Valley, Devon 83 m amsl http://www.ottervalley.co.uk
  
  

• sheltercrow said on May 17, 2008....

  Last shot Dfer...
   
  How Exxon Pays Scientists to Trick You - A Primer for Global Warming Deniers
  
  March 23rd, 2008 by Cliff Lyon
   
  There seem to be a few folks left on the planet who cannot accept the science of climate change. None of them are scientists except for the ones being paid by Exxon.
  
  I’m thinking OneUtah should build a record of this debate for the benefit of Anthropologists, Sociologists and writers who, fifty years from now, will be trying to better understand the impact and cost of ignorance of a minority within our species and how in the 21st century, the ignorant minority managed to cause an otherwise preventable ecological, economic, environmental disaster.
  
  Evolutionary psychologists call this “strength of conviction.” In some people, strength of conviction is more important than objective empirical evidence.
  
  I hope this helps.
  
  reprinted in its entirety from here: [Evil Daily Kos homepage]
  
  New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures
  
  by BruinKid Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:57 AM PDT
  
  They’re at it again. Over at ICECAP, a site that claims to not be made up of global warming deniers, but turns out to host some of the biggest names in the global warming denial field that get serious $$$ from the oil companies, Joseph D’Aleo (a meteorologist, not climate scientist) put up their latest lie. This graph is the brunt of their argument...
  
  [...]
  
  As for the “experts” at ICECAP, notice how names appear in a 2006 diary I wrote showing how “Friends of Science” was really a Big Oil mouthpiece, with those scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry. The big names that appear again are Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, the Idso family, Pat Michaels (who has since been fired by the University of Virginia for lying about what he did there), Gary Sharp, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and George Taylor. New names (but not new in the GW denier category) include Robert Balling, Reid Bryson (who was responsible for the global cooling stuff in the 1970s that right-wingers mocked scientists for; now he’s on “their” side, so they’re cool with him), Chris De Freitas, William Gray, Tad Murty, and James O’Brien. I’m sure there are other connections to Big Oil with the other people on that list too.
  
  (h/t to Climate Progress for exposing the truth behind the lies)
  
  

• stopmediabias said on May 18, 2008....

  well this place went to shit aweful quick

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  sheltercrow.......6 degrees of separation.....you could link just about anyone to anything if you wanted to.
  
  Also.....who would you expect oil companies to seek out to protect their investments?
  Do you really think they would simply pay someone to make shit up?
  You know as well as I do that it would not hold up....that it would be disproved scientifically.....nothing has been proven here...that is why there is still debate.....your side is simply trying to kill that debate, rather than continue it and get some real answers.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  
  Deconstruction time...
  
  1. INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM:...
  
  This is unconvincing and an 'I know more than the rest of you' statement. It's rather difficult to accept that "they will all tend to make the same error" in a highly peer reviewed field.
  
  2. PEER PRESSURE TO CONFORM:...
  
  The absurdity of this idea is evident in the long struggle the global warming scientists had to make against the big money pseudo science of the Exxon lobby. They literally had to make it 99% ironclad to get acceptance. Just because Roy is the last pseudo science hold out does not make him any less dependent on pseudo science.
  
  Rush Limbaugh considers Roy as his official source on global warming. That in itself says Roy is a joke.
  
  Do you want to go on and get into the data?

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  a highly peer reviewed field? Did they have those when scientists thought the world was flat?

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  And the fact that SMB supports Roy is another reason to doubt his credentials.
  
  With all due respect SMB is the ultimate nutter ditto head. The debate on torture is a fine example of her mindless rants.

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  'scientists thought the world was flat' because the church told them it was and any deviationist was or be burnt at the stake at church expense.

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  ...was to be burnt at the stake at church expense.

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  Giordano Bruno (1548, Nola – February 17, 1600, Rome) was an Italian philosopher, priest, cosmologist, and occultist. Bruno is known for his mnemonic system based upon organized knowledge and as an early proponent of the idea of an infinite and homogeneous universe. Burnt at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition, Bruno is seen by some as the first "martyr for science."

  The Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") was a list of publications prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. The avowed aim of the list was to protect the faith and morals of the faithful by preventing the reading of immoral books or works containing theological errors. The various editions also contain the rules of the Church relating to the reading, selling and censorship of books. Books that passed inspection were printed with nihil obstat ("nothing forbids") or Imprimatur ("let it be printed") on the title page.

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  In the modern capitalist society the corporation is the church. It has it's own form of modern 'Inquisition' called the corporate lobby industry.

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  funny....I see the scientific "consensus" as the church here!

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  wonderingmind42

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  Dfer let me ask you a question. If there hadn't been any laws to protect the environment passed what do you think our lakes and rivers would be like now?

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  there was tangible evidence supporting the problem with pollution in our lakes and rivers.....MMGW has no tangible evidence.

• sheltercrow said on May 18, 2008....

  
  "there was tangible evidence supporting the problem with pollution in our lakes and rivers"
  
  I'm not sure whether you mean this or not considering your other posts and subscription to industrial lobby literature. It's funny what people will write to underscore a current argument.
  
  Anyway... since I know you don't support this idea there is no point in a response... is there.
  
  

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  I am not an industrialist, and I have no reason to support them, other than the fact that what is bad for American Industry is bad for America.
  
  I understand that regulation is necessary to keep our environment healthy for us to live in....that was a good fight in previous decades....but now it is as if the environmentalist movement has ran out of things to fight for and they are merely trying to keep power.....Democrats and Liberals who have bedded down for years with this group are more than happy to gain power in anyway they can, since they are unable to get any through substantive issues.
  
  I support the idea of debate on the issue, and continued exploration into the subject.....I don't have a problem with dollars being spent on honest research into the subject, but I do have a problem with such an early diagnosis, and the shutting out of those who do not agree with that diagnosis.
  
  I don't like the idea of using the issue as a facade for raising taxes on an already overburdened populace.
  
  Tax on the rich is tax on the poor....if you impose a new tax on business it will be passed along to it's customers...that is economics 101.
  
  Reducing our ability to produce energy will result in higher prices, also having a profoundly bad effect on the poor.
  

• bloc said on May 18, 2008....

  "what is bad for American Industry is bad for America."
  
  
  This is patently false in the sense that you are saying it. It's good for american industry to use slave labor in order to make products cheaper. It's clearly good for america to not allow such things. 

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  get a grip.

• bloc said on May 18, 2008....

  i have a grip which is why i recognize statements that aren't true. I know what you're thinking, you didn't mean it that way. No, but you said it that way and you often say things that don't resemble what you are thinking. This is why it's hard to communicate with you.

• D6fer said on May 18, 2008....

  fine.....for the most part, what is bad for American industry is bad for America. better?

• bloc said on May 18, 2008....

  yes, because that opens the door for a discussion of the the exceptions and the possibility that whatever we're talking about is an exception.

• sheltercrow said on May 19, 2008....

  "but I do have a problem with such an early diagnosis"
  
  Lets deal with this statement. The only group that opposes the global warming science is the energy industry. That is oil and gas corporations. There opposition is not about if it's good for America but if it's good for profits. That is reality.
  
  The global warming problem has merit. If action is not taken now a global catastrophe for the human population is a near certainty. I cannot see how a human could place energy industry profits over human welfare.
  
  Do you know what entity is the largest single consumer of oil in the entire world? The United States Military. It consumes more oil that the countries of Spain and Portugal combined.
  
  "raising taxes on an already overburdened populace"
  
  Tax burdens are a product of politics. This is a straw-man that deflects the importance of the issue. If billions could be found to bail out Wall Street and the S&L's then the same money's could be found to save the future.
  
  "what is bad for American industry is bad for America"
  
  Lets deal with this statement. What do you consider "American industry"?

• sheltercrow said on May 19, 2008....

  "Reducing our ability to produce energy will result in higher prices, also having a profoundly bad effect on the poor."
  
  Oil and natural gas are such an important commodity I cannot see a future without them becoming public property. Virtually everything we have, use, touch, see el. al has an energy component. Since they have become vital life sustaining resources they simply have to be placed in the public domain. That is reality.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 19, 2008....

  this is a product of using the 3.0 rc1 firefox. A very nice browser by the way.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 19, 2008....

  Alien your take on the issues is so unique...
  
  global warming nonsense and gay marriage = destroying ourselves
  
  liberals... want to use global warming to promote the United Nations and their one-world government.
  
  ...it only matters what [Muslims] think since we have our heads up our butts and [Muslims] will soon be in control of the world, not the United Nations.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 19, 2008....

  The Ethics of Climate Change: Pay Now or Pay More Later? | Scientific American
  
  Weighing our own prosperity against the chances that climate change will diminish the well-being of our grandchildren calls on economists to make hard ethical judgments
  
  By John Broome
  
  What should we do about climate change? The question is an ethical one. Science, including the science of economics, can help discover the causes and effects of climate change. It can also help work out what we can do about climate change. But what we should do is an ethical question.
  
  Not all “should” questions are ethical. “How should you hold a golf club?” is not, for instance. The climate question is ethical, however, because any thoughtful answer must weigh conflicting interests among different people. If the world is to do something about climate change, some people—chiefly the better-off among the current generation—will have to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to save future generations from the possibility of a bleak existence in a hotter world. When interests conflict, “should” questions are always ethical.
  
  Climate change raises a number of ethical questions. How should we—all of us living today—evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are likely to have more material goods than we do? Many people, some living, others yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change. Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people will die before they bear children, so climate change will prevent the existence of children who would otherwise have been born. Is their nonexistence a bad thing? By emitting greenhouse gases, are the rich perpetrating an injustice on the world’s poor? How should we respond to the small but real chance that climate change could lead to worldwide catastrophe?
  
  Many ethical questions can be settled by common sense. Sophisticated philosophy is rarely needed. All of us are to some extent equipped to face up to the ethical questions raised by climate change. For example, almost everyone recognizes (with some exceptions) the elementary moral principle that you should not do something for your own benefit if it harms another person. True, sometimes you cannot avoid harming someone, and sometimes you may do it accidentally without realizing it. But whenever you cause harm, you should normally compensate the victim.

• D6fer said on May 19, 2008....

  sheltercrow....why don't you just come out and say "I am a proud socialist....I think that socialism is the key to a good future"
  
  Give the oil companies to the public? So....you are saying that the people that are currently managing our tax dollars should manage the oil too?
  
  How much does gas cost in Europe? Anyone? Anyone?
  Answer: Way more than it does here!.....do we really want to be like Europe?
  

• bloc said on May 19, 2008....

  "How much does gas cost in Europe? Anyone? Anyone?
  Answer: Way more than it does here!.....do we really want to be like Europe?"
  
  By this flawless logic we should become a muslim theocracy like saudi arabia ;)
  

• D6fer said on May 19, 2008....

  so what are you saying? if we don't become socialists, we will become theocratic?

• bloc said on May 20, 2008....

  No, I'm saying your logic is flawlessly flawed ;)

• sheltercrow said on May 20, 2008....

  "Give the oil companies to the public?"
  
  Have you ever wondered how the oil companies operate?
  
  From the Union of Concerned Scientists
  
  A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. Our results are consistent with a report by the Alliance to Save Energy that estimated the benefits of individual federal corporate income tax provisions. Their results showed that in 1989 preferential treatment yielded $1.8 billion to $4.6 billion in individual income tax benefits to the oil industry (Koplow, 1993).
  
  ...(1995) estimates the total cost in 1991 of environmental externalities to be $54 billion to $232 billion. Human mortality and morbidity due to air pollution accounts for over three-quarters of the total environmental cost and could be as high as $182 billion annually.

• sheltercrow said on May 20, 2008....

  From the American Chronicle
  
  Take ExxonMobil for instance, Big Oil´s bully boy. "[It] inspires fear... in the industry for its ruthlessness... In 2007, it recorded the most profitable year of any firm in American history, with net income of $40.6 billion." (1) In 2006, the big three, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips posted combined "windfall profits of $72 billion." In 2006 alone, ExxonMobil generated "$108 million profits a day, or $4.5 million an hour." (2) It goes without saying that the Iraq War has also been a Las Vegas-like jackpot for the U.S. oil companies. So, too, do their profits go up when the Bush-Cheney Gang threatens war with Iran.
  
  "windfall profits of $72 billion" would be better as windfall revenue to the treasury.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on May 20, 2008....

  From the American Chronicle
  
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in Bush´s two presidential elections, oil and gas companies gave Republicans, "79 percent of their $61.5 million in contributions." (5) In addition, President Bush family´s ties to "Big Oil" go back generations, as do V.P. Dick Cheney´s. (6)
  
  More on Big Oil´s obscene profits. Published reports show that in 2007, the CEO of Halliburton earned about $8,300 an hour, while the CEO of ExxonMobil raked in about $13,700 an hour. When, in April, 2008, Congress went through the motions, at a public hearing, of demanding that Big Oil justify its windfall profits, its CEOs replied that they are in a boom-and-bust industry and need the huge profits to "pay for future oil development." Incidentally, the surge in oil prices may spark a worldwide recession.
  
  [...]
  
  Globally, the trend is towards nationalization of the oil industry. Presently, this is the situation in Russia, China, Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and mostly recently Ecuador, to list some of the key Petrostates. According to Mother Jones: "State-run firms exercise exclusive domain over roughly 77 percent" of the world´s oil. (1)
  

• sheltercrow said on May 20, 2008....

  
  
  Loyal to Big Oil
  
  Who Are We?
  
  Loyal to Big Oil, a wholly owned subsidiary of Billionaires for Bush, is a consortium of oil barons, oil-company CEOs, and giddy traders on the energy futures market. Oh, and of course the faithful representatives in Congress who deliver the subsidies and tax breaks we love at the expense of taxpayers who can't afford lobbyists of their own.
  
  We are...
  
  
  • The Big Oil CEOs who average $32.7 million a year, almost 3 times the average CEO pay in the
    U.S. The same CEOs who have gotten a 50% raise
    since 2004!
  • The oil companies who rake in $115 million daily in
    net profit
  • The oil and gas lobby that has spent over $33.5
    million to buy our nation's Representatives and
    Senators since 2000
  • The oil companies that received $6 billion in
    subsidies from the 2005 Energy Bill
  • The oil barons responsible for the highest gas
    prices in 25 years, and the highest profits in U.S.
    history

• D6fer said on May 20, 2008....

  sheltercrow......how much of that profit would have to be given to the government before you would be ok with it?
  
  Are there any other industries that should be seized?
  
  Should the government just regulate all wages and profits?
  

• sheltercrow said on May 21, 2008....

  A Nationalized or Public Service is a non-profit by definition. The reality of a Public Service Oil Industry would cancel the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars, realized as windfall Oil Industry profits, from citizens to Corporate Interests. That in itself would provide an economic stimulus like no other.
  
  Public services is a term usually used to mean services provided by government to its citizens, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing private provision of services. The term is associated with a social consensus that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income. Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors.
  
  Public services tend to be those considered so essential to modern life that their universal provision should be guaranteed.
  
  A public service is characteristic of a public good (being non-profit and non-excludable) which may be under-provided by the market. In most cases public services are services that may be provided by local or national monopolies, especially in sectors which are natural monopolies.
  
  Nationalization is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government.
  
  Nationalized industries, charged with operating in the public interest, may be under strong political and social pressures to give much more attention to externalities. They may be obliged to operate some loss making activities where social benefits are clearly greater than social costs - for example, rural, postal and transport services. As an instance, the U.S. Mail is guaranteed its nationalized status by the Constitution. The government has recognized these social obligations and, in some cases, provides subsidies for such non-commercial operations.
  
  

• D6fer said on May 21, 2008....

  so what happens to my 401k, that is invested in oil......which industry is next on your hit list?
  And again....do you think all wages and profits should be regulated by the government?
  

• sheltercrow said on May 21, 2008....

  As a patriotic American you should donate your 401k to the Treasury. Just kidding.
  
  Wages and profits are much to involved to comment on here.
  
  
  

• D6fer said on May 21, 2008....

  I think it was a simple question.....do you think all wages and profits should be government regulated? Yes or no?

• sheltercrow said on May 22, 2008....

  Please see D6fer's silverweenie question from "Are you Climate Confused?"

• sheltercrow said on May 22, 2008....

  RALPH NADER only wants to break up the cartel like disease of Big Oil...
  
  
  
  

  

  Republican Rhetoric; Democratic Cluelessness
  
  Break Up the Big Oil Cartel
  
  By RALPH NADER
  
  [...]
  
  Big oil has been on a marriage binge and the mergers, including the wedding of Exxon (number one) and Mobil (number two), have tightened further the corporate cartel of oil as it feeds off the government producers' cartel of oil abroad. Antitrust break up action is necessary.
  
  The claim by the oil barons that they're just responding to the marketplace of supply and demand is laughable. Why are they making double and triple profits? Why are their top executives tripling their own pay? Hard-pressed sellers of oil would not have such a luxurious profit and pay spiral. Hard-pressed sellers of oil would not have paid $144,000 every day to Exxon CEO, Lee Raymond since 1993 and then send him off with a $398 million retirement deal.
  
  A competitive domestic oil industry would not be so able to close down scores of refineries and then turn "refinery shortages" into higher gas prices at the pump. Nor would competitive companies get away with a return on capital of 46 percent for upstream drilling and production operations, plus a 32 percent for refining and marketing. Washington Post business reporter, Steven Pearlstein, call these returns "hedge fund returns." Except with hedge funds there is a risk of losing from time to time. Not so with the corporate government of Big Oil.
  
  A President, preoccupied with his criminal, fabricated war in Iraq, would not leave Americans defenseless as oil prices eat into their family budgets. A standup President would order an all-fronts investigation of the oil industry's pricing practices from the oil well to the gasoline station.
  
  There would be full use of subpoenas and public testimony from the oil bosses under oath by his regulatory agencies. He would organize with his Republican majority in Congress a repeal of past and recent unconscionable tax breaks and stop giving away your oil on federal property in the Gulf of Mexico to the oil companies without any royalties. He would press for an excess-profits tax and legislation raising by statute the fuel efficiency performance for new motor vehicles, including SUVs, Minivans and light trucks.
  
  A standup President would raise margin requirements to tone down the speculation in oil futures that are swelling the New York Mercantile Exchange and contributing to higher gasoline and heating oil prices. He would support tariffs on imported refinery products to push the companies to expand and build new cleaner refineries in the U.S. Where? In some of the exact locations where the oil industry shut down these refineries over the past thirty years to contract overall output and move operations to cheap labor locations abroad.
  
  A standup President would give an address to the nation that mobilizes small and larger businesses which use oil to join with consumers in a common cause against the looming inflationary jolts that will raise prices for many regular products and lead to higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve.
  
  Bush can never proactively do this for the American people who already by more than a 2 to 1 margin believe he cares more about the interests of Big Business than the interests of regular people.
  
  But, mobilized small business can get him to relent and let some of these changes happen.
  
  The small business revolt can start with several hundred economically squeezed truckers bringing their 18 wheelers to Washington in a protest that encircles in a wide arc the Congress and the White House and the federal buildings in between. Now that would be more than a message. It would be an irresistible visual image for the television cameras day after day.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on May 22, 2008....

  Interactive Map: Where Is Our Oil Coming From?
  Over Half of Crude Oil Imports Come from Unstable or Unfriendly Countries -- U.S. oil consumption remains high even as the price of oil skyrockets, and the US is forced to funnel money directly into unstable and hostile regimes to fund its habit.

• D6fer said on May 22, 2008....

  Over Half of Crude Oil Imports Come from Unstable or Unfriendly Countries
  
  Yeah....Canada and Mexico are just begging for an ass kicking!
  

• bloc said on May 23, 2008....

  @d6
  do you intentionally misread peoples quotes or did you fail math as a child?

• D6fer said on May 23, 2008....

  I couldn't follow the link....but as far as I know we get about 13% of our oil from the middle east and the majority of it comes from canada and mexico.

• D6fer said on May 23, 2008....

  besides, if all the fucking pinheads that are blocking our ability to drill for our own oil would get out of the way, then this wouldn't be an issue right now would it?

• sheltercrow said on May 23, 2008....

  You are incorrect on both accounts.
  
  14.5% Saudi and 4.8% Iraqi.
  
  18.6 Canadian and 14.1 Mexican.
  
  And since you're an industry mole...
  
  And let's not forget that 52% of the US's electricity is still generated by burning coal. The rest of our electricity (January 2005) is produced by nuclear plants (20%), burning natural gas (15%), burning oil (3%), hydropower (7%), and other such as burning wood, geothermal, solar, wind, and miscellaneous (2%). In contrast to US usage, France obtains about 75% of its electricity supply from nuclear energy sources. The US produces twice as much electricity from nuclear sources as France, although that is only 20% of the US total.
  
  Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (864.18 km²) and containing approximately 25 billion barrels (4,000,000,000 m³) of oil. The amount of recoverable oil in the field is more than double that of the next largest field in the United States, the East Texas oil field. The field is operated by British Petroleum; partners are ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.
  
  Commercial oil exploration started in Prudhoe Bay area in the 1960s and the field was discovered on March 12, 1968, by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and Exxon, with the well Prudhoe Bay State #1. In 1974 the State of Alaska's Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys estimated that the field held 10 billion barrels (1,600,000,000 m³) of oil and 26×1012 cu ft (740 km³) of natural gas. Production did not begin until June 20, 1977 when the Alaska Pipeline was completed. The field was initially operated as two separate developments, the BP Western Operating Area (WOA: Oil Rim) and the ARCO Eastern Operating Area (EOA: Gas Cap).
  
  Cumulative North Slope oil peaked in 1998 at 2 million barrels per day (320,000 m³/d) (Greater Prudhoe Bay: 1.5 million barrels per day (240,000 m³/d), but had fallen to 943,000 barrels per day (149,900 m³/d) in 2005, while Greater Prudhoe averaged 411,000 bbl/d (65,300 m³/d) in December, 2006 and Prudhoe itself averaged 285,000 bbl/d (45,300 m³/d). Total production from 1977 through 2005 was 13 billion barrels (2,100,000,000 m³).
  
  As of August 2006, BP estimated that 2 billion recoverable barrels remain and can be recovered with current technology.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 23, 2008....

  Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine"
  
  Robert Hirsch, author of Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (a.k.a. the Hirsch Report), appeared on CNBC this morning. He said flat out that new technologies and new drilling won't solve the peak oil problem, and that we should expect $12-15/gallon gasoline followed by rationing.
  
  
  
  You can also watch the video at CNBC or read the transcript below the fold.
  
  And here's a follow-up with T. Boone Pickens.

• sheltercrow said on May 23, 2008....

  Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine"

• D6fer said on May 24, 2008....

  I think you are helping me make my point......If we drill more of our own.....we buy less of theirs.

• sheltercrow said on May 24, 2008....

  
  I quote a number of sources here that are indicated by the links embedded in the text.
  
  So why not drill a lot more wells? First, the stuff only flows through the rocks just so fast and no amount of drilling wells will speed the flow up.
  
  [The assumption that oil is found in "pools" is false. It is found in deposits that are oil laden that "leak" the oil out naturally from pressure of the surrounding geological features. Simply put more wells in one deposit result in that single "leak" being distributed to many wells. There is a maximum natural overall "leak rate" for a deposit that cannot be increased without outside help.]
  
  But there’s a far more important reason. Oil flows through the rocks at all, and up the wells to the surface, because it’s under pressure. Get greedy, try to extract it too fast, and you bleed off the pressure. Not only do you then have to pump, but the flow in the rocks slows down. We ruined a few early oil fields learning that lesson. Once the oil no longer flows easily, it has to be extracted by secondary means like pumping water or steam into the rocks to push the oil out. That’s expensive and inefficient compared to doing it right in the first place. So if we simply start pumping oil like crazy, that may relieve a temporary oil shortfall, but we will end up leaving a lot more oil in the ground in the long run, and paying a lot more for what we do extract.
  
  In many wells, the natural pressure of the subsurface reservoir is high enough for the oil or gas to flow to the surface. However, this is not always the case, especially in depleted fields where the pressures have been lowered by other producing wells, or in low permeability oil reservoirs. Installing a smaller diameter tubing may be enough to help the production, but artificial lift methods may also be needed. Common solutions include downhole pumps, gas lift, or surface pump jacks (e.g., the "nodding donkey" pumps dotting the countryside in old oil fields in Texas and Oklahoma). The use of artificial lift technology in a field is often termed as "secondary recovery" in the industry. Many new systems in the last ten years have been introduced into the well completion field. Multiple packer systems with frac ports or port collars in an all in one system installation have cut completion costs and improved production, especially in the case of the horizontal well. These new systems allow casings to run into the lateral zone with proper packer/frac port placement for optimal hydrocarbon recovery.
  
  Production
  
  The production stage is the most important stage of a well's life, when the oil and gas are produced. By this time, the oil rigs and workover rigs used to drill and complete the well have moved off the wellbore, and the top is usually outfitted with a collection of valves called a "Christmas Tree". These valves regulate pressures, control flows, and allow access to the wellbore in case further completion work needs to be performed. From the outlet valve of the Christmas Tree, the flow can be connected to a distribution network of pipelines and tanks to supply the product to refineries, natural gas compressor stations, or oil export terminals.
  
  As long as the pressure in the reservoir remains high enough, this Christmas Tree is all that is required to produce the well. If the pressure depletes and it is considered economically viable, an artificial lift method mentioned in the completions section can be employed.
  
  [see "oil well" here]
  
  More than 40,000 oil fields are scattered around the globe, on land and offshore. The largest are the Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia and the Burgan Field in Kuwait, with more than 60 billion barrels (10 km³) estimated in each. Most oil fields are much smaller. According to the US Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), as of 2003 the US alone had over 30,000 oil fields.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on May 24, 2008....

  
  Find More Oil?
  
  So let’s go find more oil. Well, consider a few statistics. Eight supergiant fields, with 20 billion or more barrels, account for a sixth of the world’s oil reserves. 22 more big fields bring the total up to a third, and another hundred or so fields with 2 billion or more barrels bring the total up to half. Altogether there are about 500 oil fields with half a billion or more barrels and they account for two thirds of the world’s oil. 94 per cent of all discovered oil is in the 1,300 biggest fields. The remainder is in about 40,000 small fields. We can discover oil in dribs and drabs forever without making a dent in the world’s energy picture. The oil is in the giant fields. And guess what? They’re called “giant” because they’re big, and we’re running out of places on earth capable of hiding anything that big. How many places in your yard could hide a moose? The discovery rate of giant fields has been dropping for more than fifty years.
  
  In 1956, geologist M. King Hubbert realized he could apply the statistics of oil fields to entire regions or even the world. In an oil field, production typically follows a bell-shaped curve, and production lags discovery by about ten years. Hubbert applied these principles to the U.S., assuming our total oil production would be 200 billion barrels. He predicted U.S. crude oil production would peak between 1966 and 1971. It peaked in 1970. In the 44 years since Hubbert published his predictions, we have followed his curve almost exactly. Our production now is about half of its peak value, and about what we were producing in 1950.
  
  As for the rest of the world, global oil discovery peaked in the early 1960’s, even though the record expenditures for exploration came in the 1980’s. Ninety per cent of all production is from fields older than 20 years. Global oil discoveries in the 1990’s were about equal to what they were in the 1940’s, and discoveries in the Middle East account for only a small fraction of that. We are using oil at a rate about four times as fast as we are discovering it. So what about unexplored areas? Oil geologists have a pretty good idea why oil occurs where it does, and wildcatters make their money drilling where bigger producers won’t take the risk. The reason nobody is drilling the polar ice caps or the deep ocean floors is that there is every reason to believe it won’t pay off.
  
  What about more exotic ideas? What about oil shale and tar sands? In 1997, Canada’s oil production from tar sand – for the year – was enough to supply global demand for 27 hours. There was a theory a few years ago that there were huge supplies of natural gas deep in the earth’s crust. The test well to test the theory yielded nothing. You can’t fill your tank on exotic theories and what ifs.
  
  

• D6fer said on May 25, 2008....

  hmmmm....sounds like we need quite a bit of oil to keep things moving.....how on earth will biofuels ever meet those demands?
  
  btw......a bit off track....this was a post about climate change.
  

• ALIENated said on May 26, 2008....

  
  Rush Limbaugh considers Roy as his official source on global warming. That in itself says Roy is a joke.
  
  And the fact that SMB supports Roy is another reason to doubt his credentials.
  
  The fact that Al Gwhore is making millions from his sky-is-falling fear mongering
  tells me that global warming is a joke and simply a ployto seize political power and
  mostly to put Al in the all important spotlight. Par for Democrats and left-wing 
  wackos.
  
  What difference does it make whether there is global warming? We should try our
  best to take care of our environment, but it should not be an endevor that 
  enslaves us all and cost gillions of dollars.  What it is about liberals / Democrats
  that they cannot wait to tax the crap out of us? They hate and distrust anything
  the government does, but they cannot wait to make it bigger and more powerful
  (like turning over our health care to it). Ah, I guess that answer is simple ... if
  the government is run by Democrats, all is well and good. If the government is
  run by Republicans, everything must be corrupt. 
  
  

• bloc said on May 26, 2008....

  "The fact that Al Gwhore is making millions from his sky-is-falling fear mongering tells me that global warming is a joke and simply a ployto seize political power and mostly to put Al in the all important spotlight."
  
  This argument is so bad it's hard to believe anyone could make it with a straight face. I guess the thousands of scientists who are outspoken about global warming, and a lot of them are not american, are simply trying to help Gore get rich.
  
  There is also the flip side. If we want to judge a issue by the possible agendas then Al's millions are dwarfed by the oil companies billions.
  
  But, if we were to try and talk honestly we'd discuss the facts and merits of the issue.
  

• stopmediabias said on May 26, 2008....

  Bloc-then why can't we have this debate?  Why doesn't Al and his thousands of scientists actually debate anyone?  He charges thousands of dollars for his seminars and doesn't take questions and he doesn't answer any of the charges that point out the massive errors in Inconvenient truth.  The oil companies have been dragged in front of congress to answer for their supposed massive profits, when these massive profits are only a small piece of the puzzle. 

  And why are Liberals so quiet about Kyoto?  It is because Kyoto was proof of how dangerous people like Al are.  Kyoto would have raised our taxes a ridiculous amount and would have amounted to absolutely nothing as far as global warming in concerned.

   

• ALIENated said on May 26, 2008....

  
  Global warming may be a problem (nothing you or I can do anything about ... are
  you willing to stop driving your car, I am not), but using it for political gain is
  a bigger problem. Democrats prey on the fears of weak minds. 
  
  

  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/132504/Global-Scamming

• bloc said on May 26, 2008....

  we all know the party that preys on fear. We've lived it for the past 7 years.
  
  However, the more interesting idea in your comment is that we can't do anything about it. I have more confidence in our ingenuity and will than that.
  

• bloc said on May 26, 2008....

  "11 billion fewer miles were driven this March compared to last March."
  
  I'd say that the american spirit can tackle this issue if we choose to.
  

• sheltercrow said on May 26, 2008....

  For my friend Alien...
  
  THE MEDIA'S GORE-ING OF VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE
  
  The media's overall treatment of the highly respectable former Vice-President Al Gore has been downright appalling. I find insufficient emotion to express my outrage against the truly egregious, pathetic behavior of many in the American Press and Media towards/against Al Gore, manifested by their extensive perpetration of lies, distortions and insults. 
  
  Can we claim that Al Gore is an honest man? If honesty means someone never lies or never states something inaccurate, even by accident - then of course we cannot call Gore an honest man. However, it is more than clear that he is way more honest than the current resident of the White House. Gore remains a brilliant and visionary leader (who is human enough to make mistakes sometimes) who has been falsely defamed - repeatedly. (I highly recommend to all readers who want to know the truth about Al Gore to read the Daily Howler, run by a truly remarkable, and incomparable, Bob Somerby).
  
  The list below is substantially incomplete.
  
  TARGET: Al Gore
  
  Last update: March 2003
  
  

• sheltercrow said on May 26, 2008....

  Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover
  
  In what may be one of the greatest brand makeovers in history, Gore has become an international darling, hailed as a visionary on everything from climate change to Iraq. He's an Academy Award winner, a best-selling author, a front-runner for the Nobel Prize, and a concert promoter who turned out to be a bigger rock star at this year's Grammys than the rock stars themselves.

  But what no one is talking about is that Gore has also become a stunningly successful businessman and entrepreneur, using the Petri dish of business to explore his deeply felt ideas about how the world works, doesn't work, and could work better. (In addition to being associated with two of the most successful technology companies in history, Google and Apple, he has also co-founded a cable network and an asset management company, both boasting radically new, and profitable, business models. They are becoming quiet forces in their respective fields.) And this, in many ways, has fueled his extraordinary comeback.

  If I believed in the concept of a “natural”, I'd say Al Gore is about the most natural entrepreneur I'd ever met. Instead, we make the case -- with his help -- that a lifetime in government actually prepared him to take full advantage of the possibilities that exist, at least in theory, in the private sector. But he brings a tremendous ability to the table -- some of the very same stuff that tripped him up as a candidate. (If you've seen An Inconvenient Truth, you know he can handle, and prefers, complex data. Tough to get a soundbite out of him. Especially if he doesn't want to give one.) He's also a person of immeasureable charm and persuasiveness; he can work a room and a Rolodex like few others. He's deeply introspective. He's got the guts to invest his own money; he's hands on, yet trusts his partners and team members. (He credits them with much of his success. In every meaningful way, this is their story, too.)

  For nearly two months, I've watched crowds filled with people of every size, shape, color and perspective clamor to get a chance to greet the Veep. Just to touch him. He was the star attraction at the Tribeca Film Festival's opening gala; he conversed effortlessly with programmers at an Adobe conference -- he'd circled the globe presenting his slideshow and attending meetings at least twice in the time it took me to write the piece. The "robo-candidate" of Y2K is gone -- he appears relaxed, happy in his own skin, passionately engaged in issues he gets to choose, with an agenda he gets to set. As a result, he's reenergized both his fans and his detractors -- nobody is neutral on the subject of Gore -- to powerfully emotional debates on everything from the issues of the day to his weight. And, he is the subject of endless political speculation. Will he? Won't he? (We give our own best guess in the story.)

  It comes a surprise to everyone except the people who know him and work with him, that Gore has turned out to be such an extraordinarily nimble entrepreneur. And yes, he's made a tremendous amount of money. But this profile -- a business tale hiding in plain sight -- is how he did it.

  From Fast Company
  

• sheltercrow said on May 26, 2008....

  Gore Starts $300-Million Advocacy Campaign
  
  Through private contributions, more than half the money has already been raised or committed for this campaign, according to Mr. Gore, who declined to identify his personal contribution. An accounting of his various donations toward the project, including all of his proceeds from the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, is estimated to total at least $2.7-million.
  
  

• D6fer said on May 26, 2008....

  gee Al is just so dreamy.....I wish I had voted for him!.....not!
  
  all that shelter and at least half of the people can't stand him.....I would guess more.....not counting hollywood of course!
  

• ALIENated said on May 27, 2008....

  
  Hey, he invented the internet. I guess that is something. ha ha ha
  
  

• D6fer said on May 27, 2008....

  "11 billion fewer miles were driven this March compared to last March."
  
  I'd say that the american spirit can tackle this issue if we choose to.
  
  I'd say that $4 a gallon fuel has had an impact on miles driven.
  

• bloc said on May 28, 2008....

  exactly, and maybe a carbon tax would get us off oil faster!

• D6fer said on May 28, 2008....

  that would be stupid.....it will only make gasoline for the rich.....kind of goes against the whole liberal philosophy doesn't it?

• bloc said on May 29, 2008....

  it may be more conservative than liberal. It won't make gas only for the rich. Do only rich people buy gas now? If we'd done this a few years ago we'd be in much better shape now and the gas plus the tax would have cost less than it does now.
  
  
  If we believe that the market is best equipped to find solutions to the gas problem then taxing gas would increase the incentive. So yes, this may be a conservative idea more than a liberal one. Either way, I think it's a good idea.

• stopmediabias said on May 29, 2008....

  Every day I become more of skeptic.  The "global warming threat" is quite simply a cash machine.  It is a cash machine for crazy environmentalists and a cash machine for tax happy liberals.  Bloc mentions earlier "11 billion fewer miles were driven," this amounts to a tiny belch from a volcano.  Compared to just 15 years ago cars are cleaner and far more efficient, and not because of bully tactics from enviros, because it is beneficial to a car company to make a better car.

  And someone has got to let liberals in on a little secret:  Unless we go nuclear we are not going to replace oil.  All these little good intentions and fairy tales about running cars from corn or sunlight or happy thoughts is never going to replace oil, period. 

• bloc said on May 29, 2008....

  "Compared to just 15 years ago cars are cleaner and far more efficient"
  
  This is false. Average mileage per gallon has gone down for years until very recently. Some of your other claims are patently false, but I get tired of pointing it out over and over again. It's clear you have no desire for the truth.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 01, 2008....

  Bloc-take any car still on the road with the date of 1995 and before and compare it to the cars they are making today.   We have all these emissions tests and standards we have to go through today, compare that to the zillions of cars that were on the road before there were any regulations on emissions and we've been through cold snaps and heat snaps and our environment still presses on.  Isn't it reasonable to ask these questions if we are going to preach to people about paying more taxes to supposedly save the Earth?

Comment on "Are you Climate Confused?"

Currently tagged	global warming Science Dr Roy Spencer Climate Truth government Roy Spencer (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously