Funny thing is Subman, If I were to put together my Master's Project with as many holes as these people put into their climate "studies", it would have never passed review. In a Master's program, you could never cherry pick your data, and only use the stuff you want to acheive an outcome and be taken seriously. That's why I don't trust that these people are actually doing things scientifically. Plus this:

Hurricane forecasts were rather embarassing to the "man-made" warming people, so they just sweep their inaccuracies under the rug.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

On Accepting Peak Oil--And Finding Profit

2008-04-30
By Chris Nelder

I had pretty surreal experience in TV land on Monday.
I had the privilege of appearing on the Fox Business channel, to talk about why oil prices are so high and what the future holds for oil.
In typical TV interview format, I was set up in opposition to another energy analyst who is well known for his cornucopian views. Him on one side of the "panel," me on the other, and the moderator.
You probably know what happened next: I sat there trying to stare at a barely visible camera in a small studio in San Francisco with only an ear bud and no video, thanks to the 5-second delay from New York, while the moderator gave the vast majority of our two short segments to the cornucopian, who called me a "peak freak."
I had to grin at that one. (Personally, I prefer the less pejorative "peaker.")
As he carried on about how technology will save the day, achieving vast increases in oil extraction, and about the 12 trillion barrels of oil left to exploit worldwide, I could barely stifle myself.
Unfortunately, they afforded me no opportunity to respond to any of those points. They only seemed to want my opposing view—that oil would stay more or less permanently over $100 a barrel—to make the segment "fair and balanced."
I tried to explain the importance of flow rates, the concept of a plateau at the top of Hubbert's Peak, the limits of enhanced oil recovery, and the time it takes to bring new solutions to market, but my words seemed to fall on deaf ears.
As any student of peak oil investing knows, this stuff is complex. It's hard to talk about in TV sound bites. Especially when you have to explain the gulf between the 12 trillion barrels of original oil in place that my opponent was talking about, and the 1 trillion barrels of remaining recoverable oil that I was talking about.
Presumably, Fox Business thought it best to leave it to the viewer to figure that one out.
What can I tell ya. I did what I could with it. Another appearance is scheduled for tomorrow. Maybe I'll get a few more words in next time.
Evolution of a Peak Freak

I really can't blame the media for their reluctance to face up to peak oil. It's an unpleasant concept and it immediately strikes fear into one's heart.
I have often reflected on how coming to grips with peak oil is much like the process of grieving, as identified by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. In peaker terms, I'd describe it like this:

• Denial: "There's plenty of oil out there, and we can drill our way out of this."
• Anger: "Why aren't those bastards drilling our way out of this?"
• Bargaining: "Well maybe ANWR, the continental offshore, the tar sands, and slightly more efficient cars will fix it."
• Depression: "Oh man, we're screwed, it's too big a problem for me, I might as well give up."
• Acceptance: "I'm ready for the second half of the Age of Oil and I'm going to find a way forward."

Stage One: Denial

My interview segment was an all-too-typical display of denial. Great: that's Stage One. It's a start.



Then I mused: How long have we been living on the banks of denial? And it slightly depressed me today to discover that I wrote an article by that very title back in September 2005, which I could have written today:

Energy will continue to get more and more expensive. In a short while, you won't be able to afford to fill the tank on an SUV. You will learn to like wearing sweaters, and living without A/C. If you live in a big city or a suburb, you will probably have to move. If you're in one of the red-hot real estate markets in the US, the value of your property will take a couple of sickening drops. Your money and investments will devalue. You will find it increasingly difficult to buy—or even get—food. Water will get scarcer, more expensive, and harder to clean.

Let me tell you, it gives me absolutely no pleasure to say that I was right. I've been trying to help keep this from happening for over a decade, and I've never wanted to be right less in my life
Yet, there are critics who claim that people like me are part of some unnamed shadowy conspiracy of "liberal elites" determined to destroy the economy, and other even less charitable characterizations. They say we're all congenital doom-and-gloomers.
I used to puzzle over that, until I realized that it was just denial.
Most peak oil deniers, I have found, are incredibly resistant to any sort of detailed discussion involving facts and numbers, and I have learned better than to argue with them.
But the fire in my belly says that we had better hurry up and move on here, because time is a-wastin'.
Stage Two: Anger

Stage Two seems to have arrived. Just in the last few months, we've seen it everywhere in response to food shortages, fuel shortages, panic buying, huge price increases and crazy volatility in the markets.
Over the last week fuel price spikes, panic and outrage were seen in the UK as a two-day strike shut down the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, which in turn shut down the Forties Pipeline, taking over 40% of the UK's North Sea oil and gas production offline. As of yet I haven't seen much considered discussion about how that kind of vulnerability should inform future energy policy, but there's plenty of finger pointing going on.
In Congress, the anger was evident as well. And as usual, they came up with some terrible and short-sighted proposals.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a windfall oil profits tax, a notion supported by both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Such proposals always come up around earnings season for the oil companies, but they're a bad idea because oil companies have few economical prospects left, and reducing their economic prospects even further is counter-productive.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Senator Clinton and others, called for an investigation into market manipulation, speculation and possible gouging. Most senators also appear to support a temporary halt to filling the SPR (see my article of last week, "High Gasoline Prices Are Here to Stay," on why that's a bad idea.)
Credit where it is due: President Bush was right to dismiss the suggestion, on the grounds that removing 68,000 barrels a day from an overall U.S. demand of 21 million barrels a day wouldn't help bring oil prices down.
Several senators also want to close the "Enron Loophole," and make energy trading subject to federal regulation. That much I fully support, since I've still got my own anger about the way they bent me over back in 2001.
Clinton and many other senators even proposed filing a WTO complaint against OPEC to pressure them into opening the spigots a little more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Congress might as well tilt at wind turbines.
Even President Bush was forced to address the energy price issue again—a topic he has studiously avoided while America cried uncle—but he deflected the blame.
"I firmly believe that, you know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course," he said during a news conference. "I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them."
As if he doesn't know that we can't drill our way out of this problem domestically!
I guess anger, like most things, comes around and goes around.
Anger is understandable, but it's not productive. We have to move on.
Stage Three: Bargaining

Bargaining seems to be the stage for our presidential contenders.
Senator McCain, joined by Senator Clinton, suggested a little gasoline tax holiday, which is akin to a first class upgrade on the Titanic.
Senator Obama called that one right, saying, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."
Indeed, a whole host of bargaining strategies are on offer from our leaders, such as:

• Increasing production of biofuels and other alternative fuels such as coal-to-liquids (CTL), when it's already clear that the consequences of both are unacceptable, and that the contribution they could make is too little to make a tangible difference.
• Raising the CAFE standard to 55 mpg by 2030, when PHEVs can already do that, and you can buy a car today anywhere in Europe that will do that. In 2030, remind me to mail them a letter saying thanks for nothin'.
• Spending another $150 billion toward renewable energy research. That's great, and I'm all for it, but it's also roughly what we've already been paying every year for the war in Iraq. Given the challenges we're facing, we should be investing at least as much in domestic alternative energy and rail as we are spending on the war, which ultimately is about perpetuating a dying paradigm of fossil-fuel burning automobiles.
• A lousy $1 billion for intercity rail, and $1.5 billion for public transit, when those are clearly—clearly—the most important and immediate investments we could contemplate. Instead of being at the bottom of the list, this should be at the top.

I suspect that Senator Obama may be nearing the end of the Bargaining phase, since he has quite sensibly called for a complete overhaul of US energy policy.
Moving Forward

Whoever is elected to the presidency, the next four years virtually guarantee that he or she will soon see Stage Four: Depression. There are going to be some extremely painful and difficult choices to be made.
So I hope that Acceptance will not be far behind. We have a great deal of transformation to accomplish, and very little time to do it.
Each of us has to go through this process in our own way and time. Every peaker is going or has gone through it. After five years of going through it, I'd put myself almost completely in Acceptance, although I do revisit the previous stages from time to time—another dynamic Kübler-Ross observed. It just seems to be how we're wired.
It's difficult. So I have some sympathy for every position on peak oil, including denial, because I've been there myself.
However, I have found one thing to be true time and time again: Action feels a lot better than inaction. Talking to other people about it, making plans to deal with it, and taking action helps to still that gong banging away in the brain, and relieve the tightness in the chest.
Reducing your energy consumption not only saves you money, it feels a lot better than raging at oil producers.
It also helps—a lot—to know that I can improve my odds, and hedge the inevitable losses of rising prices for everything, by investing wisely in energy. It really helps to take the sting out of a $70 fillup to see a couple hundred, or couple thousand dollar gain in the ol' portfolio.
Take a moment to think about where you are in this process, and may that reflection inform your future choices well.
Your friendly Energy and Capital peak freak,
http://images.angelnexus.com/sigs/chris.gif
Chris

Let me see if I can teach you something. You posted this:
Your ignorance is showing through here. You show an article that you think has to do with global warming but all it says is it snowed a lot. News for you!! It snows every year in Alaska. I didn't have to google anything. You supplied the link to your piece of GW wisdom. What exactly does the amount of snow have to do with cooling or warming? It doesn't mean squat. It just means they had more than normal precipitation. And then:
Well I don't know. You are the one that posted about GW = snowfall. Now you ask ME what one has to do with the other. Answer your own question! Again you confuse yourself so much you don't even know what you're saying.
Hmm. Well you read the title but unfortunately you must have stopped there. Lets have a look.
What he is saying is it "may" offset man-made global warming. He's not saying there is no global warming.
Lets look down further:
And then further:
I guess I must be a little simple. Could you please explain where this is supposed to trash man-made global warming? To me it seems to support it. Is this another case of you being all confused?

Funny thing is if you do your masters as you do here you........... Look at your last sentence here. Then read what the article says.
Now where I went to school "had" was past tense so how can "had" mean forecasts?

You have no ability to teach, nor do you have any wisdom to offer on this subject. But you do have everything to learn.

Actually it means alot if you believe the major premises of Al Gore's movie. Or if you believe the IPCC and their forecasts of receding ice and reduced snow falls close to the poles. Of course it snows every year in Alaska. That's the point. The warming models derived by people from your nutty links and paid for "scientific organizations" show massive ice depletions and drop offs in snow fall. And how it totally relates to the less than 1% total of human produced CO2. They are wrong completely. And the evidence is overwhelming. I do love how you have to pretend it now means nothing now. It's rather humorous really.

No I didn't. Your bass-ackwards here. I didn't say "GW=snowfall". Snow means cold. Record snowfalls mean very cold. And sustained cold in a simplistic way of explaining it. It also shows that your theory of man-made CO2 at less than 1% of totals is not driving planetary atmospheric warming. It couldn't. BTW, do you understand how they derive averages in atmospheric temperatures? Do you understand how that takes away from the argument of sustained warming, and how that argument has to assume natural emissions of various kinds would have to be a constant to support that theory? I know you don't. As I said, believe this junk science if it is what makes you happy.


Of no consequence. I guess you don't actually get the premise here. That there are naturally occuring factors which offset any warming. How can that be. Especially any cooling whatsoever when we're told by the paid for IPCC "scientists" that CO2 (human) is driving increased and sustained wearming and we're all going to die unless we reduce those levels. They're wrong, and I'm loving watching you guys try and save face. What a scream.

I guess you still have not gotten your reading comprehension skills up to speed. It doesn't say what you think it says or want it to say. I know spin and redefining of words to fit an agenda is your speed, but for anybody who can actually read it, it puts alot of doubt into your belief of sustained CO2 vs. increased warming. It also puts into doubt being able to actually forecast ahead which is the whole issue in the first place. These global warming kooks don't have any clue what it will be like in 10 years, 20 years, or even a month from now. So your certainty of warming is bunk to begin with. I think most people are starting to see this anyway. That's why skepticism is growing in this junk.

This post of yours makes no sense whatsoever. No surprise there. :roll:

You aren't making any worthy points here at all. Reading and comprehending what he's saying is that the global warming nut derived a theory somehow that global warming had caused hurricanes. And as a result, when they saw a warmer year a couple of years ago, he predicted hurricanes. The global warming nut was of course wrong. And now, instead of refine the theory, or admit error, bury it and pretend it never occured or has no significance. We'll be seeing more of it from the man-made warming types in the future. This is only the beginning. Your last response was full of it, and full of something else to boot.

Let me guess. Your masters is in Tap Dancing?

HAHA. :lol: :roll: Funny. Nope. It was in ME, and the project was in computational mechanics in Flight Dynamic Systems. I know how to do research. And how to refine theory. The scientists at the IPCC leave alot to be desired, and alot of questions go unanswered. And inconsistencies simply are not addressed. And theories like methane from cow belches damaging the atmosphere look to be guesses. I don't know, but that looks like unsubstantiated nonsense to me. It is neither proven, nor does it make actual sense when making comparisons to actual natural emissions, assuming of course those figures aren't static in their model. They look to be paid to acheive results that the UN and other intergovernmental bodies and environmental NGO's want.

You have to accept that there is reasonable skepticism that is warranted. Your fascist approach will not win you any followers. Just because someone at a scientific organization pushes a theory, it doesn't mean it's true, and everyone should shut up and accept it. Their refusal to address the simplest of inconsistencies makes me raise an eyebrow. And their total fanatical approach to eliminating anyone on the payroll who disagrees to "build a consensus" shows me something else. And it's not good at all.

thanks for that article, Fish. very informative

Sea Demon, Sea Demon...so very passionate about it....with such a collection of arguments....and you are a young earth creationist too, I hear. Is there a connection?

I like the bit where your argument has become "I know, you don't know, you can't teach, you can learn [from me]"

Anyway, the truth will out.


We won't limit production of CO2 et al. because there's no enthusiasm for it. No one really wants to stop it - not the us, not china, not india, not even europe.

And so will continue until either the oil becomes too expensive to use or the atmosphere has heated up beyond our willingness to tolerate or some technological solution arrives in time to save the day.

And if none of these happens, the leftist global conspiracy to eliminate capitilism will just have to find some other project. Maybe voting leads to Alzheimers or something

Oh joe. :lol: Where does one get the idea that being a Christian makes you an enemy of science? So many weird notions have come from the Internet. And this is one of them. I don't shy away from being a Christian in belief. Nor do I shy away from understanding scientific principles. This pathetic response from you is not even worth truly addressing. Really it isn't. Perhaps you have nothing to believe in, so you're desperate to believe in anything that comes your way in the form of weather scares and such. Geez.

Agreed. It's already coming out quite nicely.

I don't dispute that. But evaluating the situation for what it's worth, it hardly looks like there's a tragedy wating in the wings. For what it's worth, I do see efforts being put into reducing pollution, and reuse of materials. I applaud those efforts myself. But I also see that we need crude oil products, and it's not going away anytime soon. Just the facts, like it or not. Driving up the price won't make it less necessary. It will only make it harder for people to live, go places, find jobs, and eat. If only the true believers could see the logic in that. If only.

Yeah sure, using their theories and models, maybe in 100 years we would see an average temperature increase of 0.5-1 degree total if there are no natural weather variations or no other natural thermal factors like what the man-made warming theorists espouse. Just model everything in a static system, and model a linear increased CO2 emissions, even the less than 1% of the total leading to out of control thermal runaway. Just ignore all other factors to get your result. And ignore the actual stuff happening outside in actual weather systems.

:rotfl: That's funny joe. :up: The real problem is leading to rising costs of energy, rising costs of food, shortages in both, more unneeded governmental control and regulation over commerce, and useless international agreements that solve nothing than transfer money based on speculative theories.

I was just asking. I notice a convergence between christians and global warming skeptisism and I'm curious why. I wouldn't have thought it was an issue that stirred Chirstians up in particular.

But also, i'd like to point out that creationist does not equal christian, even if creationists are wont to assume it does.It is not the case that i think Christians are hostile to science. I know many Christian scientists - they tend not to be creationists. But as a self-confessed creationist you have a demonstrated track-record in placing evidence secondary to the desired answer.

Anyway, where did you get from all this what i believe, apart from the fact that I'm not a christian. I'm just impressed by your tireless, dogmatic, certainty when it is obvious that at best you don't know.

Personally, i hope there's nothing too much to global warming. I travel by air a lot and so my carbon footprint is larger than most. this isn't something i personally wish to stop.

I suspect anyway that rising oil prices will largely solve the problem within a few decades anyway. And as prices rise, alternatives will become more profitable, then big US energy companies will change their tune and Conservative Americans will all start singing a different song wrt alternative energy.

not really - it's too soon to tell and there is plenty of evidence that does not support your viewpoint

Oil prices are going up anyway, and this of course has economic consequences.

then there's nothing to be stressed about is there, coz our behaviour will not change until we are forced to - it's part of what makes us so human.

Glad you liked it, it made me smile too. But nothing can be blamed on the global warming movement in this regard because no actual steps have been taken yet.

Global Warming is always a nice topic for the politicians to spur up the beach with and build their little sand castles of political stability.

With that said, however, nobody in this thread is really qualified to say if Global Warming does exist or if it doesn't.:roll:

Really?? You seriously believe there are no Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists that are skeptical of man-made global warming? You don't think there are Christians who buy into it? Where is your evidence of such a convergance?

:nope: :D My goodness. Look at the global warming movement in it's entirety. It's totally based on placing actual evidence as a secondary concern. It's based on believing static models of climate systems which do not exist in the real world, and based primarily on the last 100 years. Which is a sliver in Earth's entire existence. It is every bit as much an act of faith as is a belief that Earth, science, and remarkable universal constants such as gravity are derived from God. And at least religion acknowledges that belief in the origins of life coming from God is a matter of faith. Warming types tell us their beliefs are fact...which they're not. I know how to seperate religious faith from scientific principles. Nor am I alone in that ability. Regardless of what you yourself believe as a matter of faith, or no faith in anything at all, it is shortsighted to believe those who do find inspiration in religious faith are stupid or incapable of scientific study and research. One does not disprove the other. Your own belief in the origination of Earth and life as being not from God does not affect me in any way, nor does it make me see you as someone to ridicule. I realize many who have no faith cannot really understand this, and develop their opinion on this from articles they read on the Internet. Your own ideas of convergance of GW with any skepticism shows me that you may have been led to believe some of these notions yourself.

As far as me being tiresome, I'm tired and going to sleep. And I rarely have time to log in to this site anymore. I don't think I've logged on in 3 weeks. Everytime I come back though, I'm amazed this topic is still being discussed.


As I said many times before, it is for them to prove their theories and assertions. They throw out their contrived theories and say "prove me wrong". That's not the way it works. It's more like, they don't know, and have not proven reliable in any type of forecasting they make.

Agreed.

There's not a whole lot of evidence backing their assertions. And it's up to them to prove their theories. Not for me to disprove them. And they're not doing a good job at all.

Yes. I found it humorous. What about biofuels and food shortages? What about the pressure to limit domestic drilling and refinement? Where do you think those pushes come from?

Although you must admit that the majority of creationists who have the power to decide what is and what isn't scientifically correct typically align with their belief in how Earth began... with God's will... 6,000 years ago... and for some reason they still believe in the illusion that we're special in the universe.

Ridicule the statements made by creationists; do not ridicule the people themselves. Critique them and make note of their flaws, but do not mock them. That's one of the biggest problems that arises when one of these debates breaks out.

The fact is, it's hard not to ridicule the belief that man has always existed as we see him today, even though we have contradicting evidence. It's hard not to ridicule the statement that the Earth is 6,000 years old even though we have proof that it's not. It's hard not to ridicule those who ridicule others for their statements of science (Ken Ham, for instance, on Atheists... and Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron on Atheists... and evolution; that goes for both Ham and the other two, though).

With that said, I'm going to make the statement that I find most of the beliefs creationists hold to be just plain ridiculous... however, I respect their views. It's when they get out into the open and start shoving their ideas down the throats of others that I get extremely annoyed (well, pissed) with them.

This thread =

http://www.elitetrading.de/forum/att...d_facepalm.jpg