Skip to comments.The New Hockey Stick?
Posted on 10/06/2011 11:27:37 AM PDT by 7MMmag
Everyone who follows the climate change controversy even casually will know about the hockey stick controversy. Well, Nature magazine this week offers a new graph of interest: the rising trend of retractions of scientific research papers...
Lo and behold, it looks like a hockey stick! (Heh.)
The Nature story notes:
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
The graph below, as many others have, breaks Mann's hockey stick entirely. Mann's work, under the auspices of the UN was fraudulent from the beginning. Captain obvious to the rescue? Yes, but what was obvious to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, is now gaining more widespread understanding. The whole climate change thing is a multi-faceted farce.
From an embedded link hockeyschtick.blogspot.com in the above;
There are too many good links to mention.
Other, related info- Here's a paragraph within the Nature article which is also quite telling (and damning) in itself.
For old times sake youtube; Hide the Decline song.
Right now in Reno, I’m watching snow falling. We didn’t even have a fall, we went straight to winter!
Consensus can also be used to hinder scientific inquiry. At the beginning of the Renaissance a consensus of scholars believed the earth was the static center of the universe and that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth. This view became dogma and was enforced by the Inquisition. Anyone who denied this consensus was declared a heretic and pursued by the Inquisition. Galileo used scientific method and his own telescope to prove the consensus wrong and narrowly escaped burning at the stake for his heresy. Even his book was suppressed for hundreds of years. The parallels between the man made global warming alarmists who label anyone who disagrees with their dogma a "denier" is obvious.
I want to see that chart in millions of barrels per day
uh oh, sucks to be canadian
It is going to take a lot of infrastructure along with the drilling to reach (if ever) that level.
I personally prefer an old wooden hockey stick (I can control passes better), but those carbon fiber ones sure can propel a puck when you hit a slapshot.
Wait...too wrapped up in my favorite sport to notice this is about economics. Nevermind.
But... Go Bruins!
The problem is that we started calling AGW a fact and not a theory, and a weak one at that, which it clearly is. Kuhn's book is an historical look back at science. It's well worth reading. Especially the chapter on the "priority of the paradigm".
As Don Rickles would say, “Algore is a hockey puck.”
what about canadian tar sands?
I meant US states only. (I know, GOM isn’t a state...)
A few other countries have areas producing at 1 MMBPD.
Since you asked:
In 2010, Alberta produced 459,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of
conventional light, medium and heavy crude.
In 2010, total crude bitumen production in Alberta was about
1.6 million bbl/d. (oil sands production, often upgrade to synthetic crude oil)
I still think we should build refineries in NDak instead of pipelines to texas refineries. With new refineries in NDak, canadian oil would be attracted to NDak. With global cooling upon us, the folks up north need the industry up there churning out BTUs
What is indeed a parallel, is the challenge which "climate change" (AGW) skepticism brings to the religion currently attempting to assert authority.
That religion is of course today environmentalism, which becomes a form of Gaia worship in some of it's most extreme (and shallowest?) expression.
Any 'religion' other than that bad old Christian one...(it was against Galileo(!) See? that proves it's wrong(!))
Give us some of that old time "earth majick" religion. Repackage it as 'science', and claimed consensus which even the plow-boys of today can understand (and be priests of!).
Forget a Creator God. He's old news. Stale. Immaterial (not made of material). But still somehow stale.
Earth Goddess(s). Feminism. What-everism. Just no Christian witness or testimomy. We'll take Jesus as long as he's just a mythical figure which we can replace with goddesses more to our fancy.
Did I say "it's for the children?"
Refineries produce more the gasoline and diesel. Refineries are often located in the midst of chemical plants as they use the output of the refineries as feed stock.
It is far cheaper to build pipeline only to the existing point of demand for crude oil, then spend Billions on new refineries and build even more pipelines for the multiple products.
A modern refinery also takes more inputs than just crude oil. A hydrocracker needs a hydrogen supply. They either have to build a hydrogen generating unit, or tie into a hydrogen pipeline like exists in some existing petrochemical areas.
Heard forecast that the snow-line, this side of the Sierras, was to be down to 5,000ft. It was 6,000 yesterday.
you don’t think alberta+Ndakota+alaska crude is enough to warrant refineries plus hydrocracker in Ndak? Seems to me if we don’t put one in Ndak, then the canucks will eventually put one in their own country
How are you going to get Alaska oil to North Dakota and why would you?
And you are ignoring my point. The refining is just one step. You still need to get the product to the market and that isn’t in North Dakota. You would actually build more pipeline plus build new refineries with your proposal.
You are suggesting spending more money for the same result.
I just want more jobs.
I’d rather see guys building a refinery and requisite auxillaries in north dakota than put up 50,000 windmills in kansas...and waste half a billion dollars on a damn solar cell factory that goes broke.
Also, I’d like to see the refineries NOT at a sea port so I know our petro-chemical products aren’t being exported to china!
I would rather those companies spend money building additional facilities, rather than idling facilities in one area of the country while building another.
Every dollar you spend building a refinery that already exists in another area, was dollars that could have been spent developing even more production facilities.
The capital is not unlimited, they have to choose between projects. We have the existing refinery capacity, only those refineries refine too much oil imported from oversea, particularly OPEC.
The markets for the products don’t change, just because the refineries are now in North Dakota. You still have to take the products to the existing market where the demand is.