Free Markets, Free People

And the beat goes on …

And on and on and on:

“We now have an elephant in the room, and its name is peak oil.” —Kjell Aleklett, Professor in Global Energy Systems

Lord I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that in the last 30 years. And always in the face of something like this:

Nearly a third of the world’s technically recoverable natural gas and 10 percent of its oil can be found in shale formations, according to anew report by the Energy Information Administration.  Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling, there’s a bounty of oil and gas available to countries around the world .

This report, which has a much larger scope than previous reports, bumped up the estimated global amount of technically recoverable shale gas by 9.3 percent. In its regional breakdown North America looks like a big winner. Of the 41 countries surveyed, Mexico had the seventh and Canada the ninth largest reserves of shale oil, while the US was second only to Russia. Meanwhile, the US, Canada, and Mexico were in fourth, fifth and sixth place, respectively in the EIA’s ranking of the largest technically recoverable shale gas reserves.

Of course part of the reason the peak oil crowd continues to issue it’s predictions is it seems tied into, well, another bit of a scam:

Are you optimistic about the future? Do you think that politicians will, at some point, address the problem of peak oil?

I’ve been working in this field for many years now, and it’s sad to see how little has been done. The measures that have been taken have been implemented largely because of climate change. Energy challenges such as peak oil are closely linked with climate-related issues, so victories within the field of climate change tend to be victories for peak oil as well. The good news is that we have started to tread the right path. Ultimately, we have to act. Whichever way you look at it, we won’t be able to use as much energy in the future as we do today.

I’m sorry, but that’s just nonsense.  A) there’s no reason, at least at this point, that we can’t use as much energy in the future as we do today, and B) perhaps that energy will come from a different source but not necessarily.  Unless, of course, these sorts of people have their way. More importantly though, politicians need to be kept strictly out of this business.

As we note often, this isn’t about energy or climate-related issues – it’s about control.

Make the warnings scary and dire enough and we’ll pitch control over to them.  See “war on terrorism” as a case study.

Meanwhile, in the back forty, a certain cow is still mooing the same old song:

Former Vice President Al Gore lamented today that scientists “will not let us link record-breaking” tornadoes in Oklahoma and elsewhere to climate change because of inadequate record keeping on the twisters.

“But when you put more energy into a system, it gets more energetic,” Gore said at an environmental event in Washington hosted by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Yeah, darn those scientists anyway. Oh, wait, I thought all his stuff was from scientists.  No?

As to that familiar tune?

“It is well-past time that we put a price on carbon and not just accept the price that it extracts from us,” he said.

He noted that some officials won’t pay for tornado shelters in public schools. But “if we’re having arguments about how to pay to recover” from storms, he said, that’s one more reason to fix the climate change that is leading to stronger storms.

Even if the “price” can’t be supported by science.

Got it.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to And the beat goes on …

  • Replacing oxygen with carbon dioxide is not adding more energy to the system. What the heck does that even mean?

    • Well, see, when you drive your SUV against the rotation of the earth, you’re adding energy to the rotation system, and when you drive the opposite way, you’re not.  And the guys in China, which is on the bottom of the world, are mostly not driving in SUV’s and they’re mostly not driving them in a direction that’s the same as the rotation, so they’re not affecting things by adding energy to the system, but the people in the US ARE driving, mostly in the wrong direction, and we’re adding too much energy and causing tornadoes and dorritos and other storms like Super Storm Sandy.
      Historically, when we had sailing ships and wind mills, the sails would catch the wind and slow things down and take energy out of the system to push the ships or power the grindstones or pumps that the windmills drove, but all that changed when we created the infernal combustion engine (which is a device created by the devil, which is why we call it an infernal engine), and now too many ships are sailing from China to America and screwing up the rotation and NOT taking energy out of the system like the old sailing ships did.   There’s been a call to use more windmills for power in the US to help take out energy, but not enough are being built and we’re still relying on fossil fuel (which we have to be very careful of, because we could have a “runway fossil reaction” like they had in those power plants in Japan after that tsunami).   We could use nukular energy, but sometimes those melt and if they don’t explode like Herosheena they melt down (that’s why it’s called a melt down) all the way through the core of the earth and the Chinese have to deal with them, which causes them to raise the price of their goods, which is why our economy is so wrecked because Bush wouldn’t listen to Obama.
      Jan Sabot-Lud

  • The witch-doctors of the Collective are NOT ABOUT to give up their collection plates, or their own power-sources.
    They will keep thumping their BS dogma and ignoring actual science, while demonizing the heretics who insist on sound science.
    AND they will keep preying (see what I did there) on the public school educated people who see a tornado like a goose…for the first time, every morning.
    I wish I had a hundred dollars for every time oil has “peaked” in my lifetime.

    • I put The Gore in the same category as Bill Nye the Science Guy who is CNN’s expert go-to-guy on anything weather/climate.  When either blathers it is an embarrassment to meteorology/climatology, yet the low info folks will nod and agree.  Tornado counts for the EF3-5 systems (the big guys) do show a trend….downward over the past 30 years, even though we have improved national radar capability and a plethora of ground based observers (See Tornado Storm Chasers).  And I guess his “more energy” idiocy is based on the discredited notion that the globe has continued to warm despite all major data sets showing a 15 year (at least) plateau.  Never-mind that basic meteorology states tornadoes require both warm/moist and cold/dry airmass conflicts.  Warmer everywhere puts a damper on any development.
      I weep for my Science.

      • The only victims of the BIG tornadoes used to be a lot of grass and a herd of buffalo or two.
        They used to just tear around without any notice.  Now there are people in the way.
        Which, of course, is the REAL problem for the witch-doctors.  People.

        • Well, to be fair, those occasionally hit the Native American fire and rescue facilities that were built to help stop forest fires or wild fires on the plains.
          I understand tornadoes or derechos were responsible for destroying yurts (in Mongolia) and wikiups (in America) that were used to store the climate records kept by various tribes.

          • Still people, though, right?  Even though they were PC stone-age people, they were STILL people.  Ergo, pathogens.

  • Remember global cooling?

  • Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
    The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.
    Note that this was just “rule-making”.  Some member of teh administrative state just slurping up the Gorebal Warming/Cooling/Change/Crisis/Thingie Kool-Aid, and changing our economy with a stroke of his/her word-processor.

    • adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations
      Since when have the costs of regulation ever stopped the bureaucracy from passing along new regulations ?

      • These are like teh quantum physics calculations performed by MooseSqeeze U professers of “science”.

  • This whole Climate Change thing has been propelled by “peak oil”.

    Higgins: It’s simple economics. Today it’s oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
    Joe Turner: Ask them?
    Higgins: Not now – then! Ask ’em when they’re running out. Ask ’em when there’s no heat in their homes and they’re cold. Ask ’em when their engines stop. Ask ’em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won’t want us to ask ’em. They’ll just want us to get it for ’em!

    The entire Copenhagen Accord didn’t read like a “climate” document, it read like a “Global Industrial Policy” document.  It was to set policy as to who could do what globally.  The have’s would pay off the have-nots, so they would not try to compete.
    Simply: the fix was in.
    Meanwhile, the “rubes” .. I mean citizens would be given this drivel about Climate Change so as to reduce their expectations.
    Fracking has completely screwed up the timeline.

  • I know it’s OT, but this is important!
    Revelation!   To other computer dudes – we can eliminate comms activity logging!  Obama is taking care of it for us!

  • What the Gorical isn’t telling you is that he gets that money.
    A perfect example of why my answer always depends on who’s asking the question.