On “peak oil,” it isn’t just a crazy fad of the organic bean sprout crowd, it’s been official policy of all government and industry agencies for more than a century. Every single estimate of how much oil was in reserve has been proven incredibly wrong over time. The official estimate in 1949 was less than 20 years worth of oil in the US. In 1970, world oil reserves were estimated to be exhausted in 30 years assuming consumption increased at just over the rate of average world GDP growth. Actual consumption increased at more than double that rate, and yet, by 2000 there were more known reserves remaining than the 1970 estimate thought existed in total at the time.

It isn’t about supply. It isn’t about pollution (we use more fossil fuels but produce less pollution from them than 30 years ago – one reason carbon dioxide has suddenly been classified a pollutant). It’s about control over the economy by an unqualified elite.

As for fracking — it is commonly used for extracting, not additional oil, but additional natural gas — known as “shale gas”.

We had a bunch of anti-fracking guys come to demonstrate in here in Culver City, and I met one walking down the block on stilts dressed like Uncle Sam and a big “No Fracking” sign on his back. I asked him how he heats his house in winter — did he use electricity or natural gas? He said he uses natural gas, and I responded that he needed to shift over to electricity immediately. He asked why, and I told him that fracking is how most of the natural gas in California is produced, so if he was serious about it, he should make the shift. He accused me of lying, but I said facts don’t lie, and you should be sure of your facts before you go off protesting against something you both need and use.

The other obvious factor is global warming… it cannot be ignored.
 
bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

 
Show your damn work, skippy.
 
massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

 
That sums up the skepticism beautifully.

Don’t disagree one bit. Its also pure folly that we have not opened a new refinery in 30 years. Logic dictates that we should spread the refining capacity of this country over a diverse area. It is too concentrated in just a few sites. A terrorist hit on just a few of them would put us in a world of hurt.

But the reserves we are finding, good as they are, are deeper, offshore, require newer more expensive technologies to extract. Nothing wrong with that.

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Could well be but they are investigating Methane Hydrates along the continental shelf which could supplement, or replace oil in thermal generating plants.

If we don’t build any new refineries, it won’t matter how much oil/gas we get out of our ground? The epa is going 24/7 making it almost impossible to get permits and the thousand of new regulations are so costly even the refineries we have now are not able to keep up?

letget on February 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Yep. Obama will say he supports ‘all of the above’, when behind the scenes he supports none of the above. Refineries are the bottleneck, and he will choke off our energy supply by choking off the refineries.

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM

And if so we will naturally adapt to other resources like natural gas as time goes on. Trying to force some of these green energy sources is just pure folly.

Out: Peak Oil
In: Peak Price

Let me explain. We will be awash in oil for at least a couple of more generations that is a certain. But we have to acknowledge that the cheap stuff is just about gone. Back when it only took pennies to suck the oil out of the ground the retail price of the refined stuff stayed pretty low. But the reserves we are finding, good as they are, are deeper, offshore, require newer more expensive technologies to extract. Nothing wrong with that.

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Just because O&G exporting countries have bad economies doesn’t mean that it’s not incredibly smart to figure out how to produce more oil and gas. You’re an idiot to even attempt to claim otherwise.

She aggressively embarrasses herself on these threads because she doesn’t understand any maths and sciences.

bayam, have you figured out how the globe is going to warm more than 1 degree C? Are you relying on positive feedback for that? Are you continuing to claim that the earth’s climate system is really that unstable? Are you really that stupid?

This is your problem. You don’t understand science so you’re forced to believe whatever some supposed experts tell you.

The National Academy of Sciences stupidly deferred to a small group of people calling themselves climate scientists, and now they’re politically stuck. They are losing members fast because of this position.

bayam, belief in CAGW is evaporating quickly. You might soon find yourself to be the last person still swallowing the stupid claims about CAGW.

it’s like Brayam ran off…

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

It has nothing bus 5 different talking points all reheated when needed. Not.Much.Else.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Brayam knows nothing other than she believes. That one is 51 cards short of a full deck.

Also, snow to be a rarity in Britain….drought…more storms…more intense storms….Arctic Ice disappearing….Antarctic Ice Shelf disappearing (or is that volcanic activity?)

THIS is “science” simply talking ABOUT science is NOT science….

It’s absolutely unheard of in China

You and Friedman. What a pair.

I recently hosted a group of Chinese high school exchange students, visiting the US during a break, over dinner. These kids start school at 7:30am and end at 5:00pm, 6 days a week. All spoke English fluently, many planned to pursue engineering or science degrees in college. The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American. It’s absolutely unheard of in China (and Europe), especially among educated high school kids. In 6 years these kids will graduate and ready be to compete for your jobs and for your kids jobs.

Actually that they are so willing to NOT think and NOT question is quite scary. One of the main jobs of a scientist should be to challenge and question. Instead your ilk prefers to silence or mock those that dare disagree. Ironically this simply fuels the distrust of those that don’t believe.

Smackdown. Good stuff.

msupertas on February 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM

It will mean nothing. For the left as Ivar Giaever says, global warming has become their religion. They believed in the coming ice age for the same reasons.

This is a fun image…

http://kiradavis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.jpg

What never changes is their hate for human advancement. Everywhere they want to roll back the clock to an age when the world was smaller and they were bigger.

When the right starts innovating and contributing to scientific progress in this country, I’ll shut up. Or even start a successful auto manufacturing company. Or search engine.
bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

She’s back and in fine form. Using the same talking points we have grown accustomed to. This one has about 5 thoughts that she uses over and over while daring not to question the scientific community .

Say Brayam tell me what happens when we are in an interglacial period like we are now ? What happens to the Earth’s temperature? The oceans’ level. Do tell as you’re all knowing….

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Smackdown. Good stuff.

The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo
. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

There we go again, scientists can’t be trusted to produce credible results in their fields of study because of inherent ‘conflicts of interest’. If only you had been around 50 years ago, you might have been effective at deflecting anti-smoking science.

This isn’t even close to the point I was making. I will restate;

I will consider global warming obvious when it is proven, using open-source methods that can be both validated and replicated by scientists who don’t have a vested interest in an outcome they have presupposed.

Your on the side of ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.
Prove global warming. Then, prove that whatever warming you can find is caused wholey and soley by man. Then, find a proximate cause. Then, prove that it would go away/go down/decrease by specific changes in behavior.

Show your damn work, skippy.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I recently hosted a group of Chinese high school exchange students, visiting the US during a break, over dinner. These kids start school at 7:30am and end at 5:00pm, 6 days a week. All spoke English fluently, many planned to pursue engineering or science degrees in college. The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American. It’s absolutely unheard of in China (and Europe), especially among educated high school kids. In 6 years these kids will graduate and ready be to compete for your jobs and for your kids jobs.

I struck this; it doesn’t prove anything, or move your point.

A world with few real boundaries is going to extract a heavy, heavy price on those unprepared for the new reality. The bulk of the world’s resources will go to those with the best minds and with the most advanced knowledge economies.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

We already have the best minds, and the most advanced knowledge economies. I want that, and plentiful, efficiently gathered energy.

My position is that we can have all of it.

Science dissenters? Are you serious?

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Yes you twit. If I remember correctly, they discussed ways to circumvent FOI requests and talked about how to stop the publishing of any papers from people who dissented from AWG. I wouldn’t be worried about those Chinese. They have many, many social factors working against them, and that bright shiny future you’re talking about will rob them of their manufacturing base. When it’s automated you don’t need slave Chinese labor.

who fully embrace science and act with complete confidence in scientific progress (incl. global warming science).

They DO, because their country doesn’t seem to act that way….

Again, falsifiable hypotheses that have panned out…please provide them…

Hint: Einstein said IF his theory was corect:
1) He explained the hitherto fore anomalous orbit of Mercury;
2) The gravity lens effect of star light; and
3) Clocks running at different speeds in differing gravity wells.

1) was self-evident, 2) demonstrated in the 1920′s and 3) in the 1970′s by the USN.

Einstein has “science” you keep talking ABOUT science but not actually providing any.