Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on April 29, 2016

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil: Are We Not Better Than This? Pt 5

Peak Oil: Are We Not Better Than This? Pt 5 thumbnail

[T]he West’s energy security is assured to a degree that has not existed in the past.
That’s good news for the American people and for the world, even if it is not news that Obama wants to hear.

He doesn’t? I wonder how that author knows this? Any chance it’s instead just a variation of the same let’s-not-consider-facts-and-instead-just-make-stuff-up-to-“prove”-our-point-and-keep-the-followers-properly-agitated strategy?

With a century’s worth of cheap, practical energy in hand, the global economy has a good chance of expanding.

A “good chance”?! And that would be based on … what?

What if we actually had meaningful discussions about the assertions contained in ExxonMobil’s “The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040” report which the author of the above-quote focused on [in one of the two articles which serve as the foundation of this series]? What if it was finally agreed that just firing off assertions based on little more than conjecture, hope, or a let’s-do-or-say-whatever-we-have-to animosity?

There’s no reason my grandchildren should not be living ten times as well as I am today. What stands in their way is not a lack of resources or technology – it’s government. Specially, liberal government.

Of course that’s the problem! Geology? Costs? An array of exploration, production, financial, and access considerations? Nah! Just liberals in keeping with their still vast, double-top-super-duper-secret conspiracy to … do stuff that the Right doesn’t approve of. We certainly don’t want our children or grandchildren to have better opportunities and better lives than we’ve enjoyed! Nope!

Our focus continues to be solely on dealing with facts, raising concerns based on same, seeking options and alternatives, planning, preparing, and … wait! Where is that approach going to take all of us? Damn those facts!

Obama’s outlook – and that of the green activists who gathered in Paris in December for the latest global climate summit – is something very different from that of global prosperity based on cheap fossil fuels. Unlike Exxon’s carefully researched report, Obama’s green fantasy is based on ideology rather than data.  Its projection of 50% reliance on green fuels is a pipe dream, and its climate data is skewed to match ideological goals (as, for example, in NOAA’s decision, just ahead of the Paris meeting, to shift methodologies for collecting ocean temperature data to what the agency calls ‘new methods’).

A few questions about those observations jumped out immediately. Given the author’s apparently intimate familiarity with what President Obama thinks, how does one conclude that the President has decided that his agenda should be based on fantasy and ideology [because that obviously has always been a winning strategy for every politician and entrepreneur since the dawn of mankind]?

No doubt ExxonMobil conducted a fair amount of research in preparing its report, although the authors apparently ran out of both time and space to add some facts which an extra couple of minutes’ worth of effort would have readily disclosed, making the bold assertions a bit less bold and bit less of an assertion.

How many different articles from how many different sources providing how much evidence explaining the impact of a steady decline in oil-producing rig counts, investment cutbacks, production declines, etc., etc., are needed to convince them that reliance on their ideology over reality has some serious drawbacks? Explaining the not-so-subtle “nuances” of both economic and geological conditions having more than a bit of an influence on optimistic estimates would of course skew the observations and conclusions. Can’t have that, Right?

As for the insertion of a this-is-relevant-because? comment about NOAA? It was nice of the author to toss that in there to fan the ideological flames, of course. Good tactic, especially if you just leave that comment hanging so that the already-agitated members of one’s “team” can draw the hoped-for inference about yet another nefarious, still vast, double-top-super-duper-secret conspiracy.

So what’s really going on? Why Did NOAA ‘adjust’ it’s historical data?
First, historical temperature data was finally gathered into a database which allowed researchers to analyze very large quantities of data using computers, instead of paper-and-pencil. That new database brought in new weather data taken from smaller weather stations around the world, and effectively doubled the number of data points scientists had to work with.
Naturally, when doing science, more data is better.
Second, the method for measuring old sea surface temperatures has been revised, for the first time. Historically, commercial ships have collected temperature data as part of their routine. However, the methods used for data collection have typically skewed the individual results. Scientists simply figured out how to standardize the old data set to get a more precise measurements.

Well then! That’s certainly … not even within a country mile of sinister. Good thing that explanation was omitted from the American Thinker article! Facts do mess with the narratives, don’t they?

What is the point?

We’ll delve into more of those ExxonMobil report conclusions next time.

NOTE: This series will run on Fridays through June 17

~ My Photo: at the El Conquistador Resort, Fajardo, Puerto Rico – 02.25.16

We face a choice going forward. There’s a kind of false dichotomy, a false choice that we’re being presented between policies on the left or policies on the right. It’s not left or right, it’s forward or backward. It’s a choice between investing in the future, leaving a better future for the next generation just like parents and grandparents did for us, or ignoring these hard choices and sentencing the next generation to a lower standard of living, to fewer opportunities, and a future that we could do better by. Michael Brownlee

Looking Left and Right:
Inspiring Different Ideas,
Envisioning Better Tomorrows

Peak Oil Matters offers observations and insights about the realities of declining fossil fuel production, and its impact on our future well-being

Peak Oil Matters by Rich Turcotte

9 Comments on "Peak Oil: Are We Not Better Than This? Pt 5"

  1. makati1 on Fri, 29th Apr 2016 8:10 pm 

    “Energy secured”? Bullshit in huge amounts.

    But then, the article goes on to agree with my comment. but it appears to just be selling a website with a touch of hopey/feely dreaming.

  2. Boat on Fri, 29th Apr 2016 8:14 pm 

    “How many different articles from how many different sources providing how much evidence explaining the impact of a steady decline in oil-producing rig counts, investment cutbacks, production declines, etc., etc., are needed to convince them that reliance on their ideology over reality has some serious drawbacks?”

    So they want to blame Obama for a world wide oil glut. Plant, did you help write this? Lol

  3. Survivalist on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 12:15 am 

    Click the link to the original article and read it. You’ll be more easily able to tell which statements in the article are in quotation marks and what statements are being made by the author in relation to those statements in quotation marks.

  4. GregT on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 12:50 am 

    “So they want to blame Obama for a world wide oil glut. Plant, did you help write this?”

    Time to put the bag of PVC pipe cement down and go to bed Boat.

  5. apneaman on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 1:40 am 

    I’m a cancer voter!

    As long as it’s NIMBY

    Persistent Water and Soil Contamination Found at N.D. Wastewater Spills

    A new study of spills in the Bakken oil field found metals and salts left behind at those sites even after lengthy cleanup efforts.

  6. Dredd on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 5:31 am 

    The West’s “energy” [a.k.a. dirty polluting fossil fuels] security is ” … the cause of its existential insecurity (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity – 2).

    That is why it is a predicament rather than a problem.

  7. Davy on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 11:17 am 

    Is this yet another failed state in the making? Before you say it Greg T. “Mission accomplished”

  8. penury on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 11:40 am 

    Davy, it is as it always was. How many years has it been since the U.S. appointed the Shah of Iran anyway?

  9. Davy on Sat, 30th Apr 2016 12:22 pm 

    Pen, did I say anything contrary to what you just said? Hopefully this sad chPter in our history will end soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *