[fizzissist]

Funny, ain't it dufas...

Everyone is quick to point a finger at EvilBigOil for funding the global warming deniers. EvilBigOil doesn't want you to believe in global warming because it's their fault somehow.

Yet, rather oddly, those same people are quick to suck onto the teat that we're running out of oil, which is brought to us by ....EvilBigOil.

In the U.S., the cost of oil products aren't as related to the supply of crude as much as the inability to supply refined goods, and THAT's a result of ....environmental controls that have prevented new refining capacity.

..Great post, btw.

[dufas]

Funny, ain't it dufas...

Everyone is quick to point a finger at EvilBigOil for funding the global warming deniers. EvilBigOil doesn't want you to believe in global warming because it's their fault somehow.

Yet, rather oddly, those same people are quick to suck onto the teat that we're running out of oil, which is brought to us by ....EvilBigOil.

In the U.S., the cost of oil products aren't as related to the supply of crude as much as the inability to supply refined goods, and THAT's a result of ....environmental controls that have prevented new refining capacity.

..Great post, btw.

Anytime politics enters most any situation, everything becomes sadly funny, it's like living an old Three Stooges comedy and the end results are real....

Thanks for the compliment.......

[fizzissist]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...hagen-2009.pdf

This is what Lord Moncton had to say about it as it regards the U.S. and Obama...

"...At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.........

[fizzissist]

.....And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
........So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it...."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...on/#more-11739

[rokag3]

If we are not running out of oil, then just what are we doing in the Middle East? We are currently spending about $150 billion dollars per year defending about 350 billion barrels of oil of which we purchase about $12 billion dollars worth for imports. This is clearly a bad bargain. We could withdraw the troops and let the price of oil quadruple and still save money and lives, theirs and ours. Clearly no one is performing cost benefit analysis on this fiasco.

If you are saying that forgeting about the "moral aspect" even economic aspect of war is less than positive then I agree with you 100%.
This is the side effect of technology in war. The most efficient weapon on the base cost/dead is the arrow. So engineering in war bring war as a not viable solution since the equation profit/cost is becoming VERY negative.
Then education culture justice might become real options. Let's start by pushing a new accounting law for the states like put the money spend in education in the column investment and not expenses.
Lucien

[dufas]

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009...herry-picking/

or how the AGW deed can be done........


http://www.eifoundation.org/press/re...release_id=244 and the initiation into socialism......

[fizzissist]

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009...herry-picking/

or how the AGW deed can be done........

dufas,
I see you've been getting around..

Have you been reading the comments? What is so incredibly interesting to me is the comments ..in this case lucia, who I've seen as a commentor on other blogs, and Steve McIntyre, who has his own and has been on the forefront of this particular topic (tree proxies)....

Have you noticed the difference in the flavor of the comments in the pro agw blogs vs the anti agw blogs?

[dufas]

dufas,
I see you've been getting around..

Have you been reading the comments? What is so incredibly interesting to me is the comments ..in this case lucia, who I've seen as a commentor on other blogs, and Steve McIntyre, who has his own and has been on the forefront of this particular topic (tree proxies)....

Have you noticed the difference in the flavor of the comments in the pro agw blogs vs the anti agw blogs?

While I find the comments very interesting, many, on both sides of the argument do go to the extreme somewhat in the same vein of a Christian verses Atheist argument...Neither side willing to truly examine all of the evidence or from just outright dismissal of the other side to agreeing with massaged data..

I grew up in the forest. One of my first paying jobs was to plant trees in areas that were logged. We planted 6 seedlings for every tree that was farmed. [As an aside, some of the trees that I planted were/are considered 'old growth forest' today by the environmentalists but that's another story...]

The point is that there were numerous tree stumps at any area that we were re-planting. [This was before they pulled the trees out of the ground..] I asked one of the loggers why we planted 6 trees for every one that was cut down. The basic answer was that the trees were a crop like corn or wheat and the 6 to one ratio was to insure a good crop yield 15 to 20 years in the future. He then walked me to a stand of stumps that had grown fairly close together and asked me if I noticed anything different about them. I, being a 'wet behind the ears kid, answered that all I see is tree stumps.

He pointed out the rings in the stumps and that all these trees are the same age, and how one could read the rings to determine the age of the trees and what kind of conditions that the tree lived through in it's life.

I know that the above is redundant information but he also pointed out something very interesting. While several tree stumps within 10 to twenty feet of each other had the same number of rings, the spacing in each was different. A stump that had a wide ring at around 5 years didn't show up to the same degree on a stump 20 feet away. One would think that the rings in stumps that are closely grouped would be close to being the same.

He explained that one tree could have grown over an outcrop of bedrock where nutrients were in less supply whereas another tree could have settled in a depression in the same bedrock where the ground was rich in nitrogen promoting fast growth. He pointed out small furrows in the ground where water ran down the slope during the rainy season. Some furrows would pass close by or even split around some of the stumps and completely miss others. This is important because depending on where the water came from above the tree, it could carry nutrients that allows the tree to thrive or the water could carry something that retards growth such as some naturally occurring sulfides or disolved metal minerals.. Other trees could have grown in the shade of surrounding trees cutting them off from full sunlight.

So, a researcher wanting to test an area by plug boring holes in a growing tree would be unsure of which tree that would give reliable results. If the researcher hits the wrong trees, his/her data won't give a true profile. If the researcher was the littlest bit dishonest or on an agenda, he/she could go phishing for the trees that support the hypothesis that he/she adheres to in just a small area of tree samples...

There are too many variables from the samples for the researchers to get any thing to hang one's hat on......

[handlewanker]

Hey Fizzwizz, back there a coupla' post I thought you were going to get up on your soap box and proclaim the fight for freedom was about to be started because the pubs had just closed, but I was wrong, it was just retoric.

Coming from the land of the free, I expect yo'all will just decide 'ol Bama is a new broom trying to sweep clean, but even if'n yo'all do get your bollocks tied with the protocol knot at the December "slaying of the innocents", all is not lost.

All yo' gotta do is find a brand new fire eating minister type from the Deep South, go on a campaign trail and elect a new president, like yo' always do, then yo' can just back out of the agreement, tell anyone that disagrees with youse to go get........F...., 'cos nobody in their right minds got the power to stop you, 'cept maybe the Chinese, but they are burning coal at such a prodigeous rate they might just side with you.

However, I do hope yo' bin' done yo' homework right on the oilwells being mysteriously replenished.

Quite frankly, I can't agree too freely with the theory.

I'd suscribe to the notion that, since the beginning of time when the plant material was being grown, lots of tectonic plate movement has been occuring, which as continents dived beneath each other, lots of this plant material became trapped, very deep beneath the surface, and so now we have oil gushing out from nowhere as the cavities get sucked dry.

One thing's for sure, if'n the drive for alternative energy upsets the price of oil products, then as I stated previously, who wants to pay $20 a gallon of petrol at todays rates, if you can get cheaper electric drives?

There'll always be a demand by less fortunate monied people for cheaper fuel resources, and if the market swings significently to electric or Ethanol, how will petrol compete?
Ian.

[fizzissist]

If you think Big Oil is bad, just wait to see what happens when valuable land for growing food gets converted to growing fuel....and what happens to the value of land when it's gobbled up by the people who control the fuel production and distribution.

ADM will be found to be no more noble than Shell.

...I never meant to imply that any natural replenshiment of oil, if any, was a rate even close to consumption. Just doesn't seem likely...but, ya never know.

So, is your buddy Kevin Rudd going to sign onto Copenhagen?? You Aussies are good little droids, aren't you?

[handlewanker]

'Ol Kev will do what a man gotta do, and I ain't inside his head to know much about that.

One thing's for sure, he's in the driving seat, and like all good passengers I ain't gonna undermine his confidence by bleating out that the direction we're going in is a bit iffy.

Incidently, I vote for the party, don't know about yo'all over the pond, seems like yo'all take a liking to the man's face and any other B/S the campaigners hand out and so another idiot get to drink tea in the Whitehouse.

The leaders come and go, but the party goes on irrespective.

Those that change their preferences like dirty underwear, soon get to run out of likeable faces to blame.

Copenhagen, like Munich, Pottsdam, Yalta and the Kyoto thingy won't and didn't achieve much of any consequence, and if'n ya go back in history, all the bull ever written never achieved the lasting peace it so desperately tried to achieve once the ink had dried.

I'd go so far as to say that based on performance, anyone with the wherewithall to grow and market sugarcane will probably be the winners in the Ethanol stakes, but then again, I ain't a sugar baby so why should I care.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/...in-101025.aspx

Huh? I thought the science was settled?

Funny looking graph here...I'm not gonna make suggestions about the high activity for 1996-1998 and the toasty 1998 we observed...nor will I make suggestions about the low activity of 2007-2009 and the cooling we're observing.
......like all good passengers, I ain't gonna undermine confidence....

http://www.solarcycle24.com/graphs/sunspotgraph.gif

[fizzissist]

Producer of Not Evil Just Wrong asks the AlGore a tough question.....

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog...-of-journalism

Cut the mic! Cut the mic!!

[handlewanker]

How embarrasing, Al Gore, the former second best man in the country dodging the issue.

Well as all good troopers are told, when in doubt dodge the issue, you'll never keep a good man down, Reagan proved that, never fluffed a line on his scripts, either acting for the stage or acting for real.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

Even if the U.S. were to sign Copenhagen and reduce it's CO2 emissions to ZERO.....

In the IEO2009 projections, total world consumption of marketed energy is projected to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030. The largest projected increase in energy demand is for the non-OECD economies.

(Excel Spreadsheet)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/figure_15data.xls


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

[phil c]

If you think Big Oil is bad, just wait to see what happens when valuable land for growing food gets converted to growing fuel....and what happens to the value of land when it's gobbled up by the people who control the fuel production and distribution.

ADM will be found to be no more noble than Shell.

...I never meant to imply that any natural replenshiment of oil, if any, was a rate even close to consumption. Just doesn't seem likely...but, ya never know.

Oil/coal are being replenished, there is no reason to think the basic geology of the process has changed. What has changed is that for a looooong time the CO2 in the atmosphere has been way low, so the growth rate of plants just ain't what it used to be. You need something like 100 ft thick of dead forest to produce a 2 ft. seam of coal. Who knows how many feet of oily algae to produce a significant amount of oil.

That is, if oil actually comes from dead algae/plankton. There are some fairly interesting theories that oil comes from methane that brews up out of the magma below the mantle, in an essentially never ending supply.

[jgourlay]

On the one hand, "peer reviewed science" is not only the best alternative to "my opinion", but it's also been pretty darned good on its own merits.

On the other hand, phrenology, the flat earth, and rate of descent varying with density were all "peer reviewed" in their day.

Here is my opinion, not peer reviewed and not "scientific".

1. If India and China are not now the top 1 and 2 largest pollution emitters, they soon will be. That opinion is pretty peer reviewed.
2. Neither is going to stop that train. Period. <--Opinion (they said so).
3. If neither stops that train, then the US simply ceasing to exist would not create sufficient emission cessation to significantly avert negative climatological consequences. Numerous scientists have made this observation, but they only do it on left wing radio, in the middle of the night, very quietly. Which is where I heard it.
4. The costs of us "doing something about it" would be devastating to our economy. We should all read that as "massive unemployment, possible starvation, massive increases in crime, vast suffering, the shattering of our children's future. Yes, your kid's future too." That's not opinion, that's looking at how much less CO2 needs to be emitted, versus how many BTU that represents, versus how many BTU are required (or Watts) to maintain even a semblance of a modern economy. Fact? Opinion? I don't know.


Given 1-4, "doing something about it" seems to me not only the wrong thing to do, but stupid on top of it. Now, I have four kids. Although I have many responsibilities, I am in the unique position of been only 1 of 2 people on the planet who are UNIQUELY bondaged with PARTICULAR responsibility for the welfare of these 4 lives. That responsibility is far greater than any other responsibilities I may have, all of which have the nature of being shared by many others, unlike this one, which is unique to my wife and I in particulars, if not in general nature. Haji's 4 kids? His responsibility, although I am responsible for his kids to the same degree he is for mine. And the responsibility is this: "best possible circumstances in the home I can provide, spiritual, emotional, physical, financial, nutritional, and educational."

Therefore, the right thing for me to do, is to

1. accept that the earth is going to hell.
2. do everything possible to see to that my kids have the largest possible share of declining resources.
3. Hope my progeny evolves cockroach like survivability faster than your average third worlder, and take advantage of western medicine to that end if it generates any pertinent insights.

On the OTHER hand, given 1 and 2, there is an alternate right thing do to.

1. Hurt our economy only so much as is congruent with maintaining our ridiculously superior military.
2. Bomb all developing nations, on a monthly basis, back into the stoneage so that industrial age emmissions from those countries cease at a rate and to a degree satifactory to Mr. Gore.

[dan_the_welder]

On the OTHER hand, given 1 and 2, there is an alternate right thing do to.

1. Hurt our economy only so much as is congruent with maintaining our ridiculously superior military.
2. Bomb all developing nations, on a monthly basis, back into the stoneage so that industrial age emmissions from those countries cease at a rate and to a degree satifactory to Mr. Gore.

Well it may already be too late, but I have always felt that a full court press towards energy independence would be great for America in many ways.

1. Fix our trade deficit from the import end, less oil in = less money out.
2. Fix our trade deficit on the export end. Technology we develop we can export = more money in.
3. We need more industry in America and it might as well be high tech with the attendant benefits.
4. If we do this we can slow the global use of oil. Meaning it will be there to make other important stuff like plastics and advanced materials.

Really we use oil because it is easy and it makes a lot of money for a powerful group of people. This has stunted the growth of other options and frankly put us at a disadvantage.

[jgourlay]

Agreed. I would support a full court press to a new fission reactor for every 100,000 people. And I would take all the money currently spent on welfare and put it into a moon-shot style fusion reactor project.

[fizzissist]

What international laws prevented India from becoming as affluent as the U.S?
What international laws prevented China from becoming as affluent as the U.S?

What military force prevented India from becoming as affluent as the U.S?
What military force prevented China from becoming as affluent as the U.S?

What specifically has the U.S. done, or been able to do, to keep India or China from being as technologically advanced or enjoy the high standard of living as the U.S?

And now the U.S. is supposed to give money to India and China to allow them to pollute, while we cut back?

Why is this inability of India and China to advance MY fault?

jgourlay's latter options start sounding better, and better.....