Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James L. Williams on October 13, 2019 at 9:45

Einstein died in 1955 so it is impossible to know what he would have thought of the current debate on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change. We do know that he was not impressed by consensus. He was a theoretical physicist, and we do know that Freeman Dyson and William Happer, leading living physicists are CAGW skeptics.  Keep in mind that the CAGW skeptics believe that CO2 emissions affect global temperature, but that there are other factors at play and that there is no reason to believe that atmospheric CO2 is an existential threat, and that CO2 emissions are not the major threat the world faces now.

Here is a list of leading CAGW skeptics. I think you will find that their credentials are at least as impressive as the proponents of CAGW, most notably James Hansen and Michael Mann, neither of whom has a degree in "climatology." Here is a list of skeptics that I can recall without any research:

Dr. Richard Lindzen

Dr. Patrick Michaels

Dr. Ivar Giaever

Dr. Nils Axel-Morner

Dr. Henrik Svensmark

Dr. Roy Spencer

Dr. John Christy

Dr. Willy Soon

Dr. Joe D'Aleo

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy

Dr. Judith Curry

Dr. Mark Imisides

The UN IPCC officials since the early days of Maurice Strong have never hidden the fact that the actual agenda of the Global Warming/Climate Change scare is to institute a socialistic world-wide government. Strong commented at the start that it was necessary to destroy Western Civilization to save the planet. More recently UN officials have made it clear that it is not about climate, but rather is about ending capitalism and re-distributing wealth from industrialized nations to third world nations.  

 

The climate change alarmists claim that all sorts of bad things are happening due to climate change. In reality most of the proof of change they offer is based on chartsmanship. Here is an article with an embedded video that shows proof of how this is done. I have been aware of this fraudulent use of data for many years, but I suspect that most people are unaware of this sort of legerdemain and lack the interest to look up the relevant data. This is an excellent presentation. Not included here is Roger Pielke’s studies showing that frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes has actually declined recently, and that severity of extreme weather events has not increased.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/exposing-junk-climat...

 

Here is an article about the difficulties in modelling the Earth’s climate. This article goes into a lot of detail on model deficiencies most of which I identified on my own back in the late 1980’s. Garbage in, garbage out is a good description of the climate models. The modelers can make the output be anything they like by fiddling with their assumptions regarding water vapor and cloud formation.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-mod...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 13, 2019 at 10:05

Craig & James,

I truly appreciate your detailed responses. It seems we agree that the climate is, in fact, changing. It's an indisputable fact. The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is the debate over if there are any manmade causes. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 13, 2019 at 10:16

"The UN IPCC officials since the early days of Maurice Strong have never hidden the fact that the actual agenda of the Global Warming/Climate Change scare is to institute a socialistic world-wide government."

Conspiracies are generally characterized by the obscured machinations of a limited group of individuals or parties who cooperate for a suspicious or nefarious purpose.  Nothing about those who promote climate science or support rational approaches to reduce emissions fit that definition.  Every time I hear right wing conspiracy theorists mention the UN, I have to roll my eyes.  It's like more black helicopter memes.

The Parish Climate Accord has 196 signators.  Kind of an unusually large number of conspirators to say the least.  The science community supports the accord by 97%, a real, verified percentage.  Nothing in the Paris agreement indicates an effort to create a worldwide socialist order unless someone is a real conspiracy advocate that reads into whatever they disagree with a sinister purpose.  I think it is quite plausible, and highly likely, that the signators to the accord have only one agenda - to reduce GHS emissions in order to avoid the worst potential outcome if indeed those 97% of scientists are right.  Even if one thinks that the 97% could be wrong, or may have overstated the potential global damage to the environment and to society, is the risk greater in taking action or not taking action?  That bet carries the highest stakes the age of man has ever faced.

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on October 13, 2019 at 10:24

Skip, FWIW the '97% of scientists' assertion has been debunked a number of times and many of those are easily accessible online. But more to your point, the issue isn't so much taking action or not taking action, IMO, as it is what actions are warranted.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 13, 2019 at 10:27

Craig, I have seen nothing that debunks the 97% assertion, please post a link to a reputable source for that.  I do however agree with you that the debate should now focus on the actions to take.  One of my great concerns is that without the debate and a corresponding response, we are dithering away the easiest and lease disruptive options.

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on October 13, 2019 at 16:09

Skip, the easiest thing to do is to go right to the source of the 97% figure: Cook et al 2013 paper, Environmental Research Letters, No. 8 (024024). 

The group reviewed 11,944 abstracts of climate change / global warming papers published between 1991 - 2011. Of those, 7931 (66.4%) expressed no position about AGW while 3894 (32.6%) endorsed AGW.

Of the abstracts that endorsed AGW, 3781 (97.1%) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming - hence the 97% figure.

Three key problems with the popular / political conclusion from the paper are: a supermajority of the abstracts were discarded, (only) abstracts vs complete papers were reviewed and a non-trivial number of authors from papers in the 'endorsed AGW' category disagreed with Cook et al characterization of their work.

Being generous, then, only 31.7% of the 11,944 global warming abstracts reviewed endorsed the view that humans are causing global warming.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

Permalink Reply by Steve P on October 6, 2019 at 11:28

I am surprised that there are no listings for Vine.  Vine is currently drilling two wells in 2-9N-12W Sabine Parish.  Did the last page get cut off accidentally?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2019 at 11:41

Thanks for bringing that up, Steve.  I went back and checked, no rigs reported for Vine wells on this most recent weekly rig report.   I double checked and there are none.  The previous week there was one rig reporting on a Vine well drilling 30&31 - 11N - 9W.  It is possible that rig reached TD (Total Depth) and left but I have no way to tell.  One caveat, the RigData Weekly Rig Report has changed hands.  Now Enverus (DrillingInfo) owns and issues the report.  Right after the announcement I got an email saying the charge to my credit card was declined.  Somehow Enverus had charged to an old card not used in a couple of years.  So there is obviously some growing pains with this change of ownership.  I will say this, the pace of alternate well (spacing applications) and new "permits to drill" are down.  I check them daily.  Not surprising considering the price of natural gas and how many DUCs exist in the Haynesville.

Permalink Reply by Steve P on October 6, 2019 at 16:06

so maybe a technical point - the 2 wells I mentioned were being fracked mid-September.  Are the rigs still in place for fracking?  If not, then the rig clearly has moved on.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 7, 2019 at 1:09

The drilling rig is long gone, usually for months, before completions operations commence.  A shortage of frac crews and uncertainties in TD dates create delays in completing wells.  There are normally a 100 to 150 Haynesville wells drilled to TD that are waiting on completion at any given time.  Unfortunately there is no weekly frac report so all we have to go by is the date that the state approves a work permit for a frac operation.  That approval is good for a year and completion ops can not begin without one.

Permalink Reply by Donna Thornton on October 10, 2019 at 5:04

Should be watching for Dyess Alt 1, Guffy Pattison 1, and Guffy Pattison 2.  I am working off the top of my head.  I have already signed the division orders for these. 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 10, 2019 at 5:05

These are wells currently drilling, Donna.  If you have received DOs then those are wells already in production.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page