The energy and climate debate

[Putncalls]

I see all the NG in the world and the pea under the shell isn't peak oil or CO2. I see debt under all the shells in the game.

[will2bgreat]

Just to be clear, the EPA is nothing but a political animal when it comes to global warming and regulating CO2 emissionsl.  While I agree that the EPA has performed good science and regulation when it come to the regulation of hazardous wastes, that does not mean they are doing good science when it comes to global warming.  Global warming is the greatest fraud of the 21st century.  Ask yourself a few questions about the inconsistencies in CO2 emissions:

1. The UN report on global warming identifies CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming.  However, in the preamble of the report that I read about 10 years ago, the UN also identifies the fact that there is little man can do to stop global warming in the next 50 years.
2. Archeological climitologists have found that CO2 levels were 4 to 6 times today's levels, without man ever being around.

So we can conclude that climate change has occurred in the earth's past and it is occurring again.  We can also state that if it is occuring, by cutting back on CO2 emissions, the only thing we are doing is effecting the rate of change.

Second, if global warming is a given in th next 50 years, and there is nothing man can do about that, why are we wasting billions trying to minimize emissions and virtually nothing to prepare for the rise in ocean levels?   A colleague from Boston was trying to give me crap by saying, "oh yes, that's right, there is no such thing in global warming." I simply responded, "oh yes, it's such a threat, Boston has done what to prepare for the more violent, rising Ocean levels? Yea, that's right, you've done nothing."  Follow the money and you will find real answer to the questions you seek.

The real answer is governments are using the fear of global warming to drive thel agenda of the elimination of the hydrocarbon based economy.  Don't get me wrong, I am in complete agreement with this agenda just not the way we are trying to get there.

Good luck longs.

[admin]

I stand corrected with the multi junction cells.

That's big of you, put, and technically you weren't even wrong, it's that there are ways around the theoretical limits and many more ways to get cells cheaper.

[admin]

Just to be clear, the EPA is nothing but a political animal when it comes to global warming and regulating CO2 emissionsl.  While I agree that the EPA has performed good science and regulation when it come to the regulation of hazardous wastes, that does not mean they are doing good science when it comes to global warming.  Global warming is the greatest fraud of the 21st century.  Ask yourself a few questions about the inconsistencies in CO2 emissions:

1. The UN report on global warming identifies CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming.  However, in the preamble of the report that I read about 10 years ago, the UN also identifies the fact that there is little man can do to stop global warming in the next 50 years.
2. Archeological climitologists have found that CO2 levels were 4 to 6 times today's levels, without man ever being around.

So we can conclude that climate change has occurred in the earth's past and it is occurring again.  We can also state that if it is occuring, by cutting back on CO2 emissions, the only thing we are doing is effecting the rate of change.

Second, if global warming is a given in th next 50 years, and there is nothing man can do about that, why are we wasting billions trying to minimize emissions and virtually nothing to prepare for the rise in ocean levels?   A colleague from Boston was trying to give me crap by saying, "oh yes, that's right, there is no such thing in global warming." I simply responded, "oh yes, it's such a threat, Boston has done what to prepare for the more violent, rising Ocean levels? Yea, that's right, you've done nothing."  Follow the money and you will find real answer to the questions you seek.

The real answer is governments are using the fear of global warming to drive thel agenda of the elimination of the hydrocarbon based economy.  Don't get me wrong, I am in complete agreement with this agenda just not the way we are trying to get there.

Good luck longs.

This was bound to come up sooner or later given that this thread is also about the recent policy changes and the consequences for the industry, I can only hope it doesn't escalate (I have some bad experience with that on Seeking Alpha, so forgive me I have some hesitations here) and people stay civil. If not, I will move it to another forum, probably the political one where one can amp up the volume a bit more if that's what people want.

[MartiniStocks9756]

"Follow the money and you will find real answer to the questions you seek". Correct W2BG. We conduct air modeling on the local level for industrial facilities. Accuracy???? Now take these computer models that once said on the cover of Newsweek in 1977 that the ice age is coming back. Add those computer models to the entire planet and I would civilly argue that computers cannot forecast the weather accurately three days in advance why should we think they can do climate for the planet. Computer models are wrong about predicting Hurricane's accurately. Finally, computer models do seem to impact the stock market with greater accuracy. One more thing, Mark Twain said this in "Life on the Mississippi" should add a lot of perspective to prognosticators.

The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. . . . Its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and “let on” to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past . . . what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! . . .
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

I am sure computers never could have calculated it better than Mark Twain.

[jft310]

I am not a fan of global warming . But I drive a plug in car and my wife a hybrid . Live in an energy efficient house do what we can . Both my energy efficient car and house save me money and incidentally we are helping the environment . That's our solution to global warming . save money .

[ArtM72]

Now take these computer models that once said on the cover of Newsweek in 1977 that the ice age is coming back. Add those computer models to the entire planet and I would civilly argue that computers cannot forecast the weather accurately three days in advance why should we think they can do climate for the planet. .

Perhaps one whose beliefs are based on fourty year old weather forecasts should consider an upgrade in their information resources.

So my question is when one sees the amazing progress in hydrocarbon industry computer signal processing over the past four decades how they might conclude similar efforts have not improved weather and climate forecasting?  Some regional forecasting I'm sure is more difficult than others, but as a close weather observer for four decades forecasts five to 10 days out continue to be more accurate with forecast variance continuing to tighten almost every year.  If you don't have a good idea what will likely be happening in 72 hours you should improve your weather resources.  I'd be happy to share some websites.

[MartiniStocks9756]

Okay as a famous weather forecaster once said in my area, weather is not climate..... I agree with the comment that if our planners are convinced we are going to be inundated by the sea on the coast rise then why is that not a priority. Boston, New York and down the coast should be developing plans for the expected sea rise. I do not hear much in this area of infrastructure development. And, Art, I will give you weather forecasts are getting tighter in some areas but long range not so much and since this is not the weather shareholders unite I guess this should about do this subject. Now hopefully, this week we will all see some progress on the wells and pleasing positive results and no unexpected BS with a sale of the company.

[ArtM72]

MS -

I can assure you that civil engineers through, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers ("ASCE") and other professional infrastructure authorities have been working for years doing risk assessments on the effects of global climate change and making design decisions accordingly. If you Google ASCE and "climate change" you'll likely get nearly 200,000 hits.

Again, so many of our beliefs depend upon the breadth of our information resources.

[Getitrt2]

Just to be clear, the EPA is nothing but a political animal when it comes to global warming and regulating CO2 emissionsl.  While I agree that the EPA has performed good science and regulation when it come to the regulation of hazardous wastes, that does not mean they are doing good science when it comes to global warming.  Global warming is the greatest fraud of the 21st century.  Ask yourself a few questions about the inconsistencies in CO2 emissions:

1. The UN report on global warming identifies CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming.  However, in the preamble of the report that I read about 10 years ago, the UN also identifies the fact that there is little man can do to stop global warming in the next 50 years.
2. Archeological climitologists have found that CO2 levels were 4 to 6 times today's levels, without man ever being around.

So we can conclude that climate change has occurred in the earth's past and it is occurring again.  We can also state that if it is occuring, by cutting back on CO2 emissions, the only thing we are doing is effecting the rate of change.

Second, if global warming is a given in th next 50 years, and there is nothing man can do about that, why are we wasting billions trying to minimize emissions and virtually nothing to prepare for the rise in ocean levels?   A colleague from Boston was trying to give me crap by saying, "oh yes, that's right, there is no such thing in global warming." I simply responded, "oh yes, it's such a threat, Boston has done what to prepare for the more violent, rising Ocean levels? Yea, that's right, you've done nothing."  Follow the money and you will find real answer to the questions you seek.

The real answer is governments are using the fear of global warming to drive thel agenda of the elimination of the hydrocarbon based economy.  Don't get me wrong, I am in complete agreement with this agenda just not the way we are trying to get there.

Good luck longs.

Almost all scientists in the field disagree with you.  Therefore, if you are right about it all, by your logic and belief, they are all participating in "fraud", as you say.  I believe that would be unique in human history.

Also obviously, by your logic, since some "climate change has occurred in the earth's past" without man around, man could not possibly make it worse and it could not represent a potential danger to man and the earth; and doing anything to affect the rate of change is worthless.  Yeah, right!