Open Choke

Ecosystem Collapse...

I am reading a book called "Panic in Level 4" by author Richard Preston, who also authored "Hot Zone", about the ebola virus.  One of his chapters focuses on an exotic tree parasite, the woolly adelgid, that is wiping out Eastern Hemlock.  The stories pose an interesting issue about how humans affect the ecosystem merely by our advancements in travel and international commerce.  One reviewer called it "a sobering reminder of the delicacy of our ecosystem".

 I do not subscribe to the "delicacy" point of view or the "man is evil" point of view that many take as a default position on this.  I look at it more as "humans are an interesting and powerful natural agents of change".

In any case, Mr. Preston describes lovingly the few hundred year old ecosystem supported by these majestic trees and the "ecoystem collapse" that is currently taking place via these exotic fauna that feast on the tree needles.  Do you know what happens during and after an "ecosystem collapse"?

Another beautiful and "delicate" ecosystem takes its place. 

I love descriptions and phrases that are meant solely to manipulate my emotions.

Fraud By Any Other Name...

An interesting read by an Australian climatologist.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

There is within it an idea we should expand upon... he suggests that the Australian Labour Party should tread lightly here because the consequences of their being wrong, which is looking more and more likely every day, would lead to their being non-electable in the future.

Hmmmm.  Having been a bit of a student of class action lawsuits against evil corporations brought to their knees for fraud and deception, often times for nothing at all, ala Dow Corning, it seems like dangerous territory.  Could a class-action tort be brought to bear on Al Gore, so many of the non-profit anti-capitalist propogandists, and legislators who vote on the basis of this sleight of hand to defraud us all? 

Of course, government exempts itself from fraud liability... with the attendant standards towards veracity for those in government reflecting this clemency. In fact, it is unlikely that any agency head or legislator would last more than 4 weeks in the private sector because what is standard operating procedure WITHIN the Borg itranslates into prison time and shareholder lawsuit fodder in corporate America. 

But Al Gore, his corporations, the Friends of the Earth, and all the rest... massive damages?  Biggest ever, in fact?  $50 billion spent in the last 18 years and the conclusions are more and more suspect...

Consider that Nobel Laureate Gore in front of that impressive image in "inconvenient truth" showing us how global temperatures and CO2 concentrations mimic one another.  Causality, he showed and said.  Zooming in on the graph, though, the CO2 lags temperature by 800 years across the board... but he DIDN'T zoom on the graph.  He, how to best put this... Lied. Not in a GW Bush "I really think and hope these are WMD plants, because the CIA said they might be", or "Al Qaida has some folks in Iraq, so they are in cahoots" kinda lie.  No, Al laid a Billy Sol Estes fertilizer tank misdirect kinda LIE on all of us.  Temperature drives carbon uptake, not the other way around.  Mr. Gore is an expert.  He has won a Nobel Prize for his propog... I mean, expertise. Did he not know?  Was it an honest mistake?  C'mon.  Inconceivable. 

Had Mr. Gore been, say, a Tobacco Executive, and had he intentionally lied as clearly and distinctly about his product as he did in that movie in that one particular instance (soon to be an opera, I am told), he would be in jail, and his company or industry would be paying out, say, 250 billion in damages.  

Mr. Gore, with a lifetime of public service, believes, like most long-time public servants I encounter, that you and I are stupid and because of that, lying to us is alright, because we don't know any better.  We would be much happier if we just didn't question them so much.  As a marketing guy and a senate aide told me over beers one night in DC... there are two rules of (marketing) (politics).  The first is that the People Are Stupid.  The second is "See Rule Number One".  I am not kidding about this.

The damages of this particular lie are easy to quantify... 2% of the GDP.  That is what it is calculated to institute our useless cure to a unsolvable "problem". In fact, a lawsuit, or idea of one is not without precedence.  Several have been quoted, a young Kennedy representative a recent example (Patrick, perhaps? His generation of the bloodline is particularly unsuccessful), that Americans who voice their skepticism towards the, ahem, "purity" of massively funded research by those with an endgame agenda, and no, I don't mean the oil companies, should be sued or arrested.  For doubting!  This seems extreme to me.  Kind of Fascist.  Or National Socialist, if you get my drift.

This should interest a clever plaintiff attorney...

An Excellent Talk On Global Warming...

The Alabama State Climatologist presenting to a class at Auburn.  The questions at the end attempting to disparage him via his funding sources and not his dataare telling.

The Business of Global Warming...

Every time a climate expert comes out saying that maybe, just maybe, global warming isn't this huge human existential deal, there is a pile on about the poor slob having "industry funding" with the strong inference that such an opinion is moot because he or she is beholden to "dirty money" that would thus necessarily sway the results. It seems to me that this argument is a double-edged sword.

A little Memorial Day googling indicated that U.S. taxpayers spend $4 billion dollars a year in Global Warming research.  It is not clear how much more private money ala Al Gore etc. is added to that funding... at least $350 million in PR as per their press release.

Also controversial and difficult to find is the number of climatologists in the world.  One source claims 31,000, but, as another pointed out, this means that every climate program on earth churns out 10 per year that stay in the profession.  The 31,000 number is touted by its progenitor as "vetted scientists and engineers".

So at least 4 billion dollars going to as many as 31,000 S&E's "researching" Global Warming.  That is a funding rate of a little more than $130,000 per year per S&E researcher that is actually de facto contingent on the existence of a Warming Crisis. 

Makes ExxonMobil's $181,000 contribution that invalidated a research group's conclusions seem pretty paltry, doesn't it?  Following the money is a handy tool.  Make no mistake, Global Warming Alarmism is a huge industry, whether it is true or not.

A good read by Kudlow...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/striking_out_on_energy

Global Warming- The Disaster! Crumbles a Bit More.

Interesting article-

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts" excised text from an article in "The Age" and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Also...

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Thoughts on a Easter Weekend...

This is a great post on the economy...

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/periodic-fiscal-insanity.html

He also has another post where he addresses income equality.  He discovers we DO have it relative to Europe, but that overall we are better off, EXCEPT at the bottom end.  In essence, equalizing income drags EVERYONE down.  His research caused him to change his mind on the subject.  One of my favorite bloggers.

I made the "unfortunate decision" in January to participate in a chat forum on www.peakoil.com.  It was terrifying.  At the very top of the page was a poll that showed 51% of the people on the forum wanted us to run out of oil soon.  The forum was dominated by posters that "Are Concerned With The Environment" and "Fighting Global Warming" that have found in hydrocarbons all that is wrong with mankind. 

I was immediately and roundly decried as a greedy moneyhound.  Ideological debates are not really winnable, as I once again discovered.  I wonder when I will ever learn?

I went back and reread the thread today, hoping that time and distance would provide a better perspective and clarity.  It did, indeed.

First, the majority of the posters (those that want an immediate end to the hydrocarbon age, and which account for a predominance of posters on this site) attacked anyone who posted anything about large scale reserves being found today, and discounted heavily those reserve numbers as fallacious.   One comment read "<The Big Number> came from an Exxon engineer and the <Very Low Number> from a scientist not in the industry.  Which do you believe?" 

Uhhhh.  Trick question?  Probably the industry expert opinion.  My bankers would certainly agree.   He knows what he is talking about and he actually has something to lose being wrong.  Of course, in socialist in environmentalist clothing land, where NO ONE has anything to lose being wrong, where the "preventative principal" holds form control, only dilettentes with social engineering agendas are held to be "non-corrupt" purveyors of wisdom.  Too bad my banker won't accept this level of expertise to loan money on.  Being rational, they only do it when the dilettente social engineers actually talk the government into guaranteeing the bank's loan portfolio on stupid invetsments.

In essence, this is a world where ignorance is deemed supreme to expertise... IF ignorance agrees with my opinion.  Hmmm. In other words, these folks are terrified that there might be MORE recoverable hydrocarbon than less.

Second,  several, the majority really, did not really believe in human ingenuity.  A couple stated it outright.  They apparently believe that human progress is the product of governmental and inter-governmental mandates.  I was roundly attacked for making a statement that human ingenuity was at work in all aspects of energy efficiency, including oil and gas, and that we should keep an open mind with regards to where those breakthroughs may occur. One fellow discounted out of hand that human progress could recover more hydrocarbons, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Eventually, the truth emerged.  Several of the posters claimed Hydrocarbons evil because they have allowed human population, greedy capitalism, and industrialized society to grow and prosper.  One woman, who admitted to being a "human doombat" looked forward with glee to the destruction of society and and "couldn't wait to hear the wails of human despair as they faced the pits of hell while <she> crunched her apple, ate wild lettuce, and read her latest fantasy book".  Unlike ol' Open Choke, who tried to provide reserves facts and an open mind to where energy could or should be derived, and was attacked on a very personal level, nary a peep of criticism came the way of our misanthropic apple cruncher.  The argument that environmentalism has devolved into a cover for a human death cult couldn't have been more starkly made.

Clearly, there were plenty of idealistic folks that are not human-haters on this forum... they are seeking how renewable and low carbon load energies could be adopted for the benefit of mankind, and are not anti-human per se.  Nearly all are convinced that hydrocarbons are keeping us from living in Tomorrow World.  Revolutionaries, really.  Willing to destroy in order to build.  Not concerned with the human sacrifice necessary to transition RIGHT NOW. 

These concerned me the most.  They don't seem to be great students of history, they certainly don't believe in free market solutions to anything, and don't believe in a human ingenuity focused solution.  They are mightily attracted to the dark side of heavy handed, single point, "damn the consequence" intervention.  They despise business and businessmen.  They find it easy to condemn business men as carrion feeding of the body of society, and society a stupid bunch of cows willingly subjugated to the needs of bug business.  They think of themselves as enlightened and the only ones not sullied enough to do the hard work of keeping the stupid people from getting what they want, and making sure they get only what they need... defined by the enlightened.  I think "elititist" is a term appropriately applied. 

Why do you think that is?  What has convinced them that good solutions come exclusively through the power of a central authority? It was amazing how many of the comments mimic'ed Lenin's "a few eggs get broken to make an omelette" quote. Damn what the majority... the stupid people... want.  They will be happy with what we give them.  Let them eat Wind and Solar Cake. 

Beware the "perfect" society.  History shows that individual liberty, life, and property are the first casualties when we chase after that chimera. 

IPCC- Incorrect Protocols for Calculating Climate?

Interesting read.  Climatologists are not statisticians, apparently.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Whoops. I meant climate CHANGE...

Newest numbers...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Climate Consensus (Part 1)

Confused about whether the "debate" on global warming is really over, and we are all going to die as proclaimed by Nobel "Lariat" Al Gore and his advisory panel of Climate Scientists including Micheal "Hockey Stick" Mann, or that it is all alarmist bunk, ala Fred "PetroLacky" Singer?

Here is the Real Deal... a poll of 500+ climate scientists (and ONLY climate scientists) from all over the world done in 1996 and repeated in 2003 conducted by Bray and Storch of the GKSS Insititute of Coastal Research in Geesthact, Germany.  So what do Climate Scientists REALLY believe?

   32% strongly believe that Global Warming is a process already underway.  34% believe it is likely so, 16% think it is probably so, 6% don't know, 3.5% think it is probably not, 5% think it most likely not, and 2.5% think it is definitely not.  From 1996 to 2003, the average response has moved from Probably So to Likely  So.

With regard to Climate Scientists consensus as to Anthropogenic Causation as the most important factor (which include urban heat sinks, greenhouse gas emissions and other various factors), 9% think it definite, 25% think it is likely, and 21% think it probable.  45% are neutral to strongly in disagreement.   Between 1996 and 2003, the average consensus has moved from negative side of neutral to the positive side of neutral.

The "tipping point" argument, which states that we are at the verge of a catastrophic climate change, whether human induced or not, enjoys the support at some level or another of around 50% of climate scientists.  The other 50% disagree with this or are neutral.  The average response has changed since 1996 from slightly negative neutral to slightly positive neutral.

With regards to the question of whether Climate Models can accurately predict climate conditions in the future, less than 1% strongly believe so, 6% believe it is likely, and 28% think they are probably predictive.  65% of climate scientists have a neutral to negative opinion on the predictive capability of current models.  The average response has barely moved since 1996, and remains in the likely NOT predictive column of the survey.

This represents less than 10% of the full results which I will publish as time allows over the next week or so. 

To summarize so far, there is a consensus of Climate Scientists that say Global Warming is indeed occuring at some level.  Climate Scientists are currently Neutral as to whether anthropogenic causes are the the major drivers, although they are tending to move into the man 'dunnit' column.  Unfortunatley, we don't exactly know if they mean Greenhouse Gas or other anthro drivers, which, from a policy point of view is... uh... pretty FRIGGIN' important!

Climate Scientists are equally divided and officially Neutral on the "tipping point" argument... the "we are all gonna die" hysteria.  Climate Scientists have moved in the "oh my Gawd" direction a little bit in the last decade. 

Lastly, Climate Scientists have little faith in their climate models, the major tool used to "predict" climate change and anthropomorphic forcings.  The consensus is that these models are likely wrong, and there has been little movement from that position in the last decade.

So in essence, they believe we are in a warming stage, but they are fighting about if Mankind is responsible, if we have some huge apocalyptic event facing us, and they think the Crystal Ball they use for looking in the future... well, it doesn't really work.

I have a lot more coming in the days ahead... including what parts of the Crystal Ball the climate scientists believe are more reliable than others, the extent they think the press drives their or their colleagues research choices and topics, how their own personal values are integrated into the science, and much more...