Given my history of writing, and knowing my occupation within the oil and gas industry, you might be surprised to find out that I DO believe that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe that the climate of this pebble has been changing for somewhere around 4.54 Billion years and it continues to do so today.
You may also be surprised to find out that I'm very concerned about pollution that results from modern society including, but not limited to, my very own oil and gas industry. As you read above, I also, despite my open Christianity, believe that the Earth was NOT created 5-6,000 years ago but more like 4.54 Billion years ago and that evolution is a very real thing.
I also think that one of the worst things to happen in modern society is the politicization of pretty much everything. This despite, for years, writing what is known by my handful of readers as being a pretty horrible politics blog.
And yes, I believe in, and appreciate, science. Most importantly I value the scientific method and frequently mourn it's recent passing. I mourn it because there are a lot of bad things that happen when we don't believe in science, or the scientific method, and allow our politics to dominate the conversation.
- Vaccines (or the refusal to use them)
- Nutrition (and the obesity epidemic)
- Food supply (ethanol and GMO's being two examples of this)
But the things I worry most about are pollution and climate change, in that order.
When Al Gore first formed his investment group and realized that the American populace was a) sadly uneducated on the scientific method and b.) he could make a mint off of this fact, it all started to go downhill. What followed was a movie with nine proven factual errors being given the Oscar for "Best Outstanding Documentary" and outsized influence because those of a similar political disposition liked the cut of Gore's jib.
And everyone loves a villain.
Trust me when I tell you that there is NO better villain in this world than so-called "Big Oil". Not that they're evil, but that they operate on a massive scale, generate some fairly hefty profits at times, are primarily led by old Caucasian guys and, when accidents happen, they are whoppers.
But they usually are just that, accidents. In my over a decade working in the industry I've never heard, or been part of, conversations about harming the environment, or cutting corners to put people in harm's way. I'm not suggesting this goes on, but most of the engineers that I've met have no desire to have their project 'in the news' or 'creating a headline'. That's just truth. I realize few believe it but since you probably aren't in the industry there's no way I can prove it and it probably wouldn't matter anyway.
That's because we've been conditioned, by our politicians and society, to discount information that contradicts our beliefs no matter how compelling the facts are surrounding the case. For example:
The Climate Change Computer Models (around which there is such scientific "consensus" that they are treated as Gospel) are not accurately matching what is going on in the real world. They neither foresaw the "pause" in heating that occurred nor are they accurately reflecting the real-world results of a decrease in carbon. This doesn't mean that human activity doesn't contribute to the change, only that it might not be the main driving force behind it.
In "scientific" circles, that makes me a "climate denier' which symbolizes my empathy and de facto agreement with Holocaust deniers according to leading scientific lights such as Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (the Science Guy). There are some who even suggest (seriously) that those who point this out should be arrested, sent to 'reconditioning camps' even. I guess so that we can have the heresy beaten out of us?
But again, those two distinguished thinkers that I just referenced are less scientists now and more political activists. That's where the money and fame lie. There is also the problem that neither Tyson, or Nye are actual climate scientists. That's right, the leading argument used by Michael Mann against those who pointed out flaws in his hockey stick diagram (namely, that they weren't climate scientists) can be leveled accurately against the two proponents of the same.
And this gets us to the point of this post (finally):
The biggest problems with climate change are not that enough resources are being spent, too few economies are being destroyed, too little money is flowing into the already sizable bank accounts of Al Gore's investment groups, too-little power is being handed over to the world government, that the poorer nations aren't getting paid enough money by the richer ones, no. The biggest problem is that the politicization of the issue is preventing us from figuring out what we can do to deal with it rather then destroying society in a fairly useless attempt at stopping something that's been going on before man was even a single-cell organism.
The biggest problem is us.
Because we choose to listen to politicians who are simply trying to punish political enemies (and, in many cases, impede the other 'side' from fund-raising or rent-seeking), get re-elected and gain majorities at all levels over government in order to increase their power base and pay off their political patrons. We chose to forget what the scientific method really is in lieu of some neat Power Point slides and a movie or three with gee-whiz special effects. Think about this: It was a Democratic US Representative who stated she wanted to "Nationalize the US Oil companies" and you know what? Once that happened the debate over "carbon-caused climate change" would disappear overnight.
We put too much power in the hands of functional idiots, and then we wonder why things are as they are.
We currently have a President who couldn't make a solid go of it as a casino owner in an industry that basically prints money. And look at the US Senate. To quote Obi Wan Kenobi: "You will never find a bigger hive of scum and villainy." And REALLY stupid people. The House of Representatives is just as bad. Even worse are your state-elected officials, and then your municipal and county politicians. It's an ever growing pile of incompetence, inability and utterly clueless people. (Not to mention, horribly socially awkward) And, no, it's not the fault of everyone else, your elected representatives are just as bad. You won't admit it in most cases because then you have to admit that you voted for them.
The worst thing about all of this is that not only have we elected low-functioning idiots to rule us (and, make no mistake about it, they're not public servants, THEY ARE RULERS in America at this point) but we're taking totally gormless entertainers seriously.
No, Jennifer Lawrence, it wasn't God who was punishing us for Donald Trump that caused the hurricanes, and no Neil deGrasse Tyson it wasn't climate change that suddenly caused them to appear.
It was primarily the Atlantic mulitdecadal oscillation.
That you haven't heard that term on a newscast, from a politician or from *snicker* Leonardo DiCaprio is everything wrong with the entire situation in one.neat.package.
Showing posts with label BadScience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BadScience. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Sunday, January 01, 2017
2017: To start: Let's get honest about Climate Change.
Welcome to 2017. A new year full of hope, hangovers and, if you believe the media and the climate-group financed scientific community, impending DOOOOOOOOOOM.
The climate IS changing. Of that there can be no debate. Things right now are getting warmer and warmer after a period of getting cooler. You hear about things not happening since "before the last ice age" which makes sense if you take a long view and consider the fact that we've pretty much been on a warming trend since then.
What's debatable is what's CAUSING the change, not that it's happening. There are some, funded by the climate change cartel mostly, who are telling us that the world is super-heating because of your love for steak and cars. Also rice, which is a new one on me. The problem with these climate-disaster types is two-fold.
1. The only "solution" to their "problem" is a mass-culling of the population. That's it. They won't say it anymore out loud but it's what they're thinking. Not them, of course, or any of the people they know or are related to. It'd be better for them if the faceless poor were taken out back behind the coal mines and disposed of discreetly. They consider themselves a modern-day version of Pontius Pilate. They wash their hands of your idiocy.
2. The gloom and doom is happening, but the world is not drowning. According to many, we've already hit the disaster points in Al Gore's prediction cycle. We've reached a temperature increase of 1.5 C and we're at 400ppm for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By all accounts, the low-lying islands should be under water by now, the people should be breathing only through the help of gills and the entire polar ice cap should be no more.
They will ignore these things like they have ignored the "pause" that occurred in the temperature rise, like they ignored the fallacy of the "hockey stick". They will disparage the messengers and will continue to tell you that it will all be A-OK if only we shuttle another Billion dollars to Al Gore's carbon-free investment groups. If we just send a little bit more money to the wizened investors who understand the problem in a manner better than us they will take it and ensure (they promise) to stand athwart the planet and holler "STOP!" at a volume sufficient to cause any thoughts of global warming to cease and desist.
But they also need some things from you. First, if you could stop flying around the globe. As a matter of fact, if you could stop flying all together that would be even better. Flying, you see, was never intended to be a transportation tool for anyone outside of the Elite. Leonardo DiCaprio can fly while going from swanky party to swanky party around the globe lecturing us about the dangers of climate change. You cannot fly to DeMoines for your grandmother's funeral. That's just how it works. Send her a card (printed on recycled paper of course) or something. They'll understand, they're saving Gaia.
You should also stop driving a car, and take a bus, train or other (better yet) walk or bike everywhere you need to go. Say you want to move more than 10 miles from your home? Forget it. It would be better for everyone involved if you would just stay put. (If you would give up your armaments and stay put that would be better for everyone involved as well. Unarmed sheep are docile sheep.)
Unfortunately you're going to have to give up some food stuffs as well. Meat being the most obvious, since a cow's ass has now become climate villain number 3 (behind you, and capitalism of course) you might also have to give up eating anything that you cannot cultivate in your own back-yard. Technology has provided us with the ability to have a first-world food supply, but the USDA and climate change hysterics are wanting to reduce us to dark-ages subsistence farming. Think North Korea without Kim Jong Un.
And if you're thinking about keeping your house cool in the upcoming blast-furnace Summers, or using the modern convenience of "refrigeration" to preserve your food? Well, you can just about forget about that as well because they've now decided that Hydrofluorocarbons are suddenly on the "bad actors" list and you can't have those either. Ice? forget it. A/C that provides relief from heat stroke and the elderly potentially dying in the Summer? Sorry. Refrigeration that prevents the spread of food-borne illness and leads to overall health? Better dig that outhouse hole a little deeper because you're going to have to deal with that as well.
I have a novel idea however.
Since all of the stuff that we've been doing, so far, has not stopped the advance of climate change, nor has it really slowed it, maybe 2017 is the year we bundle up all of these so-called "climate change realists" and show them the door? Perhaps it's time to stop wondering how we can "stop" climate change and start asking how better to adapt to it?
Because what we're doing now is playing a game of political whack-a-mole trying to suppress everything that might be super-heating this marble without a full understanding of the entire process itself. In a sane scientific world, instead of the psuedo-scientific, computer model driven one in which we currently exist, failures to halt the advance of climate change would be met with a new hypothesis. What we're doing today however is choosing to reject the evidence of reality and are being assured that the "models are correct".
And that's the dirty secret behind the entire Anthropogenic Climate Change movement. They really don't know what's causing it but they've programmed their computer models as if they do. The guiding light of their philosophy being that humanity is the cause. This despite increasing evidence this is not so.
If we truly believe in the power of humanity (based, amazingly, on history) to overcome our circumstance and persevere then we need to stop listening to modern-day versions of King Canute and start listening to modern-day versions of Noah.
Because Noah, knowing that he could not stop the coming flood, figured out a better way to deal with it.
As should we.
The climate IS changing. Of that there can be no debate. Things right now are getting warmer and warmer after a period of getting cooler. You hear about things not happening since "before the last ice age" which makes sense if you take a long view and consider the fact that we've pretty much been on a warming trend since then.
What's debatable is what's CAUSING the change, not that it's happening. There are some, funded by the climate change cartel mostly, who are telling us that the world is super-heating because of your love for steak and cars. Also rice, which is a new one on me. The problem with these climate-disaster types is two-fold.
1. The only "solution" to their "problem" is a mass-culling of the population. That's it. They won't say it anymore out loud but it's what they're thinking. Not them, of course, or any of the people they know or are related to. It'd be better for them if the faceless poor were taken out back behind the coal mines and disposed of discreetly. They consider themselves a modern-day version of Pontius Pilate. They wash their hands of your idiocy.
2. The gloom and doom is happening, but the world is not drowning. According to many, we've already hit the disaster points in Al Gore's prediction cycle. We've reached a temperature increase of 1.5 C and we're at 400ppm for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By all accounts, the low-lying islands should be under water by now, the people should be breathing only through the help of gills and the entire polar ice cap should be no more.
They will ignore these things like they have ignored the "pause" that occurred in the temperature rise, like they ignored the fallacy of the "hockey stick". They will disparage the messengers and will continue to tell you that it will all be A-OK if only we shuttle another Billion dollars to Al Gore's carbon-free investment groups. If we just send a little bit more money to the wizened investors who understand the problem in a manner better than us they will take it and ensure (they promise) to stand athwart the planet and holler "STOP!" at a volume sufficient to cause any thoughts of global warming to cease and desist.
But they also need some things from you. First, if you could stop flying around the globe. As a matter of fact, if you could stop flying all together that would be even better. Flying, you see, was never intended to be a transportation tool for anyone outside of the Elite. Leonardo DiCaprio can fly while going from swanky party to swanky party around the globe lecturing us about the dangers of climate change. You cannot fly to DeMoines for your grandmother's funeral. That's just how it works. Send her a card (printed on recycled paper of course) or something. They'll understand, they're saving Gaia.
You should also stop driving a car, and take a bus, train or other (better yet) walk or bike everywhere you need to go. Say you want to move more than 10 miles from your home? Forget it. It would be better for everyone involved if you would just stay put. (If you would give up your armaments and stay put that would be better for everyone involved as well. Unarmed sheep are docile sheep.)
Unfortunately you're going to have to give up some food stuffs as well. Meat being the most obvious, since a cow's ass has now become climate villain number 3 (behind you, and capitalism of course) you might also have to give up eating anything that you cannot cultivate in your own back-yard. Technology has provided us with the ability to have a first-world food supply, but the USDA and climate change hysterics are wanting to reduce us to dark-ages subsistence farming. Think North Korea without Kim Jong Un.
And if you're thinking about keeping your house cool in the upcoming blast-furnace Summers, or using the modern convenience of "refrigeration" to preserve your food? Well, you can just about forget about that as well because they've now decided that Hydrofluorocarbons are suddenly on the "bad actors" list and you can't have those either. Ice? forget it. A/C that provides relief from heat stroke and the elderly potentially dying in the Summer? Sorry. Refrigeration that prevents the spread of food-borne illness and leads to overall health? Better dig that outhouse hole a little deeper because you're going to have to deal with that as well.
I have a novel idea however.
Since all of the stuff that we've been doing, so far, has not stopped the advance of climate change, nor has it really slowed it, maybe 2017 is the year we bundle up all of these so-called "climate change realists" and show them the door? Perhaps it's time to stop wondering how we can "stop" climate change and start asking how better to adapt to it?
Because what we're doing now is playing a game of political whack-a-mole trying to suppress everything that might be super-heating this marble without a full understanding of the entire process itself. In a sane scientific world, instead of the psuedo-scientific, computer model driven one in which we currently exist, failures to halt the advance of climate change would be met with a new hypothesis. What we're doing today however is choosing to reject the evidence of reality and are being assured that the "models are correct".
And that's the dirty secret behind the entire Anthropogenic Climate Change movement. They really don't know what's causing it but they've programmed their computer models as if they do. The guiding light of their philosophy being that humanity is the cause. This despite increasing evidence this is not so.
If we truly believe in the power of humanity (based, amazingly, on history) to overcome our circumstance and persevere then we need to stop listening to modern-day versions of King Canute and start listening to modern-day versions of Noah.
Because Noah, knowing that he could not stop the coming flood, figured out a better way to deal with it.
As should we.
Saturday, October 03, 2015
Your Saturday #BadScience moment: The EPA's push to regulate ozone.
I preface what I'm about to write by saying that I'm NOT in favor of increasing pollution. I also believe that companies who intentionally pollute, either through overt actions or sloppy containment measures, should pay a hefty price. This includes regulatory bodies who don't practice what they preach. That said, just because the EPA is a poorly ran organization is not proof-of-case their argument is wrong. That lies with the bad numbers and science that they are producing of late.
Obama Administration Issues Rules to Curb Ozone. Susan Carroll, HoustonChronicle.com
This is behind the Chron's increasingly expensive pay wall. So go read the entire thing if you can. For my argument I am going to be selectively quoting here.
At long last the EPA has uncorked it's latest assault on the petrochemical industry in an effort to save Gaia. By seeking to reduce atmospheric ozone they have placed themselves in direct opposition to the entire petrochemical industry and Sol. You almost wonder if, somewhere, God looked down on the EPA and uttered "seriously?"
The problems that I have with the EPA here is not in the form of pollution control. I think this is a worthy goal and we should all be stewards of our planet, attempting to leave it cleaner and nicer than we found it. By all accounts however, that is happening even without tighter regulations. The reason for this is because the public and investors are not going to support bad actors. As a member of the oil and gas industry, we all understand the need and responsibility to produce and refine our commodity in the most environmentally responsible way possible. All of us? Probably not. Because in any industry there are always bad actors, but an overwhelming majority of us sure. The problem with most government regulation is that it regulates to the lowest common denominator, punishing not only the wrong-doers but those who are complying as well.
In this case the EPA seems to be relying on some dodgy science. To whit...
In the case of pollution and ozone, there are many factors that could explain why health related issues are spiking. For one, pollution and ozone are typically highest in the Summer. In Houston, it's almost unbearably hot, and heat and dehydration are both causes of stroke, heart attack and a host of other medical problems. Does ozone play a role? Possibly, but how big of one we cannot tell because some grad assistance at Rice studied a couple of sets of data and noticed that, in a vacuum, they moved in harmony.
Granted, this study does raise some interesting questions, but it's hardly complete and the science should not be "settled".
On the issue of pollution I am a little less frustrated. There are reams of data showing that particulate matter leads to increased health risks. I get that. But again, companies are already making great strides in doing that within budget. I don't really see the need for the EPA to act as a budget buster based on bad financial analysis. How do I mean?
Any way you look at it this is a bad financial conclusion. Consider the following:
- The EPA seems very certain that they can isolate industry impact exactly but provide a wide range of error ($3 Billion) for health impacts. Not only is this faulty, it's very close to negligent. The current administration has a habit of underestimating the true impact to industry in regards to its regulatory agenda. In fact, I would argue the overall impact to industry (including job-loss, loss of additional investment and other factors, is well North of the $5.9 Billion top end that they EPA says will be gained.
- The EPA is notoriously loathe to provide the hard numbers behind their economic guesses. In which case, this becomes a political statement not one backed by sound economics.
- Companies are not going to just absorb additional costs in a vacuum. When operational costs go up it's typically labor expense that goes down. For the Houston region the petrochemical industry is a huge job creator. While I understand there are a lot of people in Houston that would like to see it go away, the impact to the region would be disastrous in terms of population flight, loss of tax base and loss of economic clout. Houston made it's International bones as a global energy center. If you take away that economic clout, and the money behind it, it becomes something closer to Cleveland South. Again, there are people who would like to see that happen, they're just don't say it out loud.
There is a lot that can, and will, be done to continue to clean the air and make oil and gas production cleaner and more sustainable. Amazingly, the very things that could accomplish that AND turn a profit are not being seriously explored. Natural gas is relatively clean, and is currently being flared at high levels because there is no market demand, yet the Administration has remained almost silent on the issue of either expanding it's use, or expanding LNG exports. Clean coal technology is in it's infancy, but does have some promise, especially CO2 capture for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects. But the Federal Government and States (with a couple of notable exceptions) are not seriously discussing incentives to allow companies to do that.
I've said before that I'm not a fan of tax incentives for companies to drill wells and produce oil and gas. These are things that we are going to do anyway regardless of whether or not we get a temporary break on taxes. Where I can see incentives working it to entice companies to take financial risks on projects such as anthropogenic CO2 capture for use in EOR. This would serve a dual purpose in both increasing a companies willingness to invest capital, and it would provide a social good for those who believe that man is primarily driving climate change.
In short, it's a win-win.
What the EPA is proposing is a lose-lose type of regulation. It increases the cost structure of doing business while increasing the burden on the tax payer due to greatly increased outlays needed to enforce the unenforceable. Even shorter: The EPA is making regulation to benefit the EPA.
And they're straying away from good science to do it. That should concern you somewhat.
Obama Administration Issues Rules to Curb Ozone. Susan Carroll, HoustonChronicle.com
This is behind the Chron's increasingly expensive pay wall. So go read the entire thing if you can. For my argument I am going to be selectively quoting here.
At long last the EPA has uncorked it's latest assault on the petrochemical industry in an effort to save Gaia. By seeking to reduce atmospheric ozone they have placed themselves in direct opposition to the entire petrochemical industry and Sol. You almost wonder if, somewhere, God looked down on the EPA and uttered "seriously?"
The problems that I have with the EPA here is not in the form of pollution control. I think this is a worthy goal and we should all be stewards of our planet, attempting to leave it cleaner and nicer than we found it. By all accounts however, that is happening even without tighter regulations. The reason for this is because the public and investors are not going to support bad actors. As a member of the oil and gas industry, we all understand the need and responsibility to produce and refine our commodity in the most environmentally responsible way possible. All of us? Probably not. Because in any industry there are always bad actors, but an overwhelming majority of us sure. The problem with most government regulation is that it regulates to the lowest common denominator, punishing not only the wrong-doers but those who are complying as well.
In this case the EPA seems to be relying on some dodgy science. To whit...
Rice University researchers have examined local health effects of ozone by analyzing city of Houston emergency ambulance service records and cross-referencing them with ozone measurements for an eight-year period. They found the risk of heart attack increases by as much as 4.6 percent during peak periods of pollution. In a separate study, they found the risk of asthma attacks increase by 10 percent between 50 and 70 parts per billion.On the surface, this seems pretty damning, if you don't understand the scientific method and this one important fact: Correlation does NOT equal causation.
In the case of pollution and ozone, there are many factors that could explain why health related issues are spiking. For one, pollution and ozone are typically highest in the Summer. In Houston, it's almost unbearably hot, and heat and dehydration are both causes of stroke, heart attack and a host of other medical problems. Does ozone play a role? Possibly, but how big of one we cannot tell because some grad assistance at Rice studied a couple of sets of data and noticed that, in a vacuum, they moved in harmony.
Granted, this study does raise some interesting questions, but it's hardly complete and the science should not be "settled".
On the issue of pollution I am a little less frustrated. There are reams of data showing that particulate matter leads to increased health risks. I get that. But again, companies are already making great strides in doing that within budget. I don't really see the need for the EPA to act as a budget buster based on bad financial analysis. How do I mean?
EPA estimates the cost to industry would be $1.4 billion annually in 2025, when most counties are expected to comply. The agency said those costs are outweighed by health benefits of about $2.9 billion to $5.9 billion.
Any way you look at it this is a bad financial conclusion. Consider the following:
- The EPA seems very certain that they can isolate industry impact exactly but provide a wide range of error ($3 Billion) for health impacts. Not only is this faulty, it's very close to negligent. The current administration has a habit of underestimating the true impact to industry in regards to its regulatory agenda. In fact, I would argue the overall impact to industry (including job-loss, loss of additional investment and other factors, is well North of the $5.9 Billion top end that they EPA says will be gained.
- The EPA is notoriously loathe to provide the hard numbers behind their economic guesses. In which case, this becomes a political statement not one backed by sound economics.
- Companies are not going to just absorb additional costs in a vacuum. When operational costs go up it's typically labor expense that goes down. For the Houston region the petrochemical industry is a huge job creator. While I understand there are a lot of people in Houston that would like to see it go away, the impact to the region would be disastrous in terms of population flight, loss of tax base and loss of economic clout. Houston made it's International bones as a global energy center. If you take away that economic clout, and the money behind it, it becomes something closer to Cleveland South. Again, there are people who would like to see that happen, they're just don't say it out loud.
There is a lot that can, and will, be done to continue to clean the air and make oil and gas production cleaner and more sustainable. Amazingly, the very things that could accomplish that AND turn a profit are not being seriously explored. Natural gas is relatively clean, and is currently being flared at high levels because there is no market demand, yet the Administration has remained almost silent on the issue of either expanding it's use, or expanding LNG exports. Clean coal technology is in it's infancy, but does have some promise, especially CO2 capture for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects. But the Federal Government and States (with a couple of notable exceptions) are not seriously discussing incentives to allow companies to do that.
I've said before that I'm not a fan of tax incentives for companies to drill wells and produce oil and gas. These are things that we are going to do anyway regardless of whether or not we get a temporary break on taxes. Where I can see incentives working it to entice companies to take financial risks on projects such as anthropogenic CO2 capture for use in EOR. This would serve a dual purpose in both increasing a companies willingness to invest capital, and it would provide a social good for those who believe that man is primarily driving climate change.
In short, it's a win-win.
What the EPA is proposing is a lose-lose type of regulation. It increases the cost structure of doing business while increasing the burden on the tax payer due to greatly increased outlays needed to enforce the unenforceable. Even shorter: The EPA is making regulation to benefit the EPA.
And they're straying away from good science to do it. That should concern you somewhat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)