Who Is Drilling Where In The Haynesville Basin - A Snapshot - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-28T23:13:46Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/who-is-drilling-where-in-the-haynesville-basin-a-snapshot?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A3859776&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThen start a new discussion t…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38598122019-10-14T15:53:44.102ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Then start a new discussion that is not titled, "<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Who Is Drilling Where In The Haynesville Basin - A Snapshot".</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This discussion is now closed.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Then start a new discussion that is not titled, "<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Who Is Drilling Where In The Haynesville Basin - A Snapshot".</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This discussion is now closed.</span></p>
<p></p> Interesting. All the topics…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38596362019-10-14T15:47:31.534Zbryanhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/bryan
<p>Interesting. All the topics posted on climate change, CO2 and methane emissions, solar and wind power are inherently political and not directly related to the Haynesville shale. Let's apply the same standards to all.</p>
<p>Interesting. All the topics posted on climate change, CO2 and methane emissions, solar and wind power are inherently political and not directly related to the Haynesville shale. Let's apply the same standards to all.</p> 97%, 99%.........the number i…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38596302019-10-14T14:20:31.388ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>97%, 99%.........the number is less important than the realization that climate change presents myriad and wide ranging dangers to every person of this earth. Where you live may not protect you. Your level of wealth may not shield you. Denial dooms the most vulnerable parts of our world, and the people and their culture, to catastrophic results now. Pushing back more forcefully against sources of climate denial has been a long time coming. And is warranted. I hope it's not too…</p>
<p>97%, 99%.........the number is less important than the realization that climate change presents myriad and wide ranging dangers to every person of this earth. Where you live may not protect you. Your level of wealth may not shield you. Denial dooms the most vulnerable parts of our world, and the people and their culture, to catastrophic results now. Pushing back more forcefully against sources of climate denial has been a long time coming. And is warranted. I hope it's not too late.</p>
<p><a href="https://time.com/5621885/climate-change-population-growth/" target="_blank">https://time.com/5621885/climate-change-population-growth/</a></p>
<p>Royal, would you care to start a new discussion? I have allowed the thread to get far off topic and that is against site policy. If you would care to place your emphasis on the politics of climate change, there is a sub group for that. Politically focused discussion threads are meant to be held there, not on the Main Page.</p>
<p><a href="https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics" target="_blank">https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics</a></p>
<p></p> I still find 99% unlikely. Am…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38596272019-10-14T13:57:33.950ZRoyal Tylerhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/RoyalTyler
<p>I still find 99% unlikely. Among my scientific cohorts (I publish, but not on climate) when talking in private the number is closer to 50/50. Those on the side of human-caused catastrophe try to publicly shame anyone with an opposing viewpoint, just like the left does in most of American political issues. Conservatives on this issue, and many others, in this age of shaming and name-calling those with opposing viewpoints, it's often the case that many just keep quiet with opposing…</p>
<p>I still find 99% unlikely. Among my scientific cohorts (I publish, but not on climate) when talking in private the number is closer to 50/50. Those on the side of human-caused catastrophe try to publicly shame anyone with an opposing viewpoint, just like the left does in most of American political issues. Conservatives on this issue, and many others, in this age of shaming and name-calling those with opposing viewpoints, it's often the case that many just keep quiet with opposing positions.</p> Craig~
If you would care to c…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38598622019-10-14T13:12:19.124ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Craig~</p>
<p>If you would care to continue the discussion, please start a separate one. We are off topic quite a bit in this one focused on where rigs are drilling. Also please be aware that the website architecture only allows for so many responses in a thread before the Add Reply button disappears for replies specific to a prior reply. We have hit that point, so I have to go to the original reply box under the discussion title. This glitch makes it hard to follow the sequence of…</p>
<p>Craig~</p>
<p>If you would care to continue the discussion, please start a separate one. We are off topic quite a bit in this one focused on where rigs are drilling. Also please be aware that the website architecture only allows for so many responses in a thread before the Add Reply button disappears for replies specific to a prior reply. We have hit that point, so I have to go to the original reply box under the discussion title. This glitch makes it hard to follow the sequence of posts.</p>
<p>Thanks for the iopscience.com link. I think the numbers have changed significantly since the 2011 cut off in the study sample. I'll post a few other sources for those who may have an interest. You and I can disagree but it becomes pretty much a feed back loop. Since you appear to agree with me regarding the need to take some actions in regard to global warming, I'd be curious to hear your suggestions.</p>
<p><em>Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals<a rel="nofollow" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#footnote_1"><sup>1</sup></a> show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree<a rel="nofollow" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*">*</a>: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.</em></p>
<p>NASA</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/</a></p>
<p>Union of Concerned Scientists</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding-financials">https://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding-financials</a></p>
<p>The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.</p>
<p>Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensu...</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Skip, the easiest thing to do…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-14:2117179:Comment:38596162019-10-14T03:09:34.431ZCraig Cooperhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/CWCoop
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Of the abstracts that endorsed AGW, 3781 (97.1%) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming - hence the 97%…</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Of the abstracts that endorsed AGW, 3781 (97.1%) endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming - hence the 97% figure.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Being generous, then, only 31.7% of the 11,944 global warming abstracts reviewed endorsed the view that humans are causing global warming.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf</a></span></p> Craig, I have seen nothing th…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-13:2117179:Comment:38596072019-10-13T21:27:54.851ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Craig, I have seen nothing that debunks the 97% assertion, please post a link to a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">reputable</span> 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.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Craig, I have seen nothing that debunks the 97% assertion, please post a link to a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">reputable</span> 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.</p>
<p></p> Skip, FWIW the '97% of scient…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-13:2117179:Comment:38595462019-10-13T21:24:09.744ZCraig Cooperhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/CWCoop
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p> "The UN IPCC officials since…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-13:2117179:Comment:38595442019-10-13T21:16:13.519ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p><em>"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."</em></p>
<p>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…</p>
<p><em>"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."</em></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p> Craig & James,
I truly ap…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2019-10-13:2117179:Comment:38597822019-10-13T21:05:25.760ZJesse Joynerhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/JesseJoyner
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Craig & James,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">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. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Craig & James,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;">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. </span></p>