About Me

Name: theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Proof I did not cause Global Warming!

 

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Doomed by Global Warming

 




PARIS (AP) - Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that nations will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios.

They tried to warn of dire risks without scaring people so much they'd do nothing - inaction that would lead to the worst possible scenarios.

"It's not too late," said Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued Friday. The worst can be prevented by acting quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

The worst could mean more than 1 million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs by 2100, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, one of many study co-authors. He said that adapting will mean living with more extreme weather such as severe droughts, more hurricanes and wildfires.

"It's later than we think," said panel co-chair Susan Solomon, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who helped push through the document's strong language.

Solomon, who remains optimistic about the future, said it's close to too late to alter the future for her children - but maybe it's not too late for her grandchildren.

The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found:

_Global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.

_If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

_But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control - something scientists say they hope can be done - the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

_Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Sea level rise could get worse after that. By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would be inevitable and the world's seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet, Bindoff said.

That amount of sea rise would take centuries, said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada, but "if you're in Florida or Louisiana, or much of western Europe or southeast Asia or Bangladesh ... or Manhattan ... you don't want that," he said.

The report spurred bleak reactions from world leaders.

"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution" to save the planet.

"While climate changes run like a rabbit, world politics move like a snail: Either we accelerate or we risk a disaster," said Italy's environment minister, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio.

And South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said failure to act would be "indefensible."

In Washington, Bush administration officials praised the report but said they still oppose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem can be addressed by better technology that will cut emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

About three-fourths of Americans say they expect global warming will get worse, according to a recent AP-AOL News poll. However, other recent polls have found they don't consider it a top priority for the U.S. government.

But doing nothing about global warming could mean up to a 10-degree Fahrenheit temperature rise by the end of the century in the United States, said report co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona.

Elsewhere, the projected effects of global warming would vary on different parts of the globe.

Temperatures would spike higher near the poles, according to the report. Within 22 years - whether greenhouse gases are controlled or not - most of the Northern Hemisphere will see more high temperature extremes, the report showed. Places like Northern Africa will get even less rainfall.

This climate change "is just not something you can stop," said Trenberth. "We're just going to have to live with it. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

People experience the harshest effects of global warming through extreme weather - heat waves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes - said study co-author Philip Jones of Britain's University of East Anglia. Those have increased significantly in the past decade and will get even worse in the future, he said.

Given all the dire predictions, why are scientists nearly all optimistic? They think their message is finally getting through to the people in charge.

United Nations environmental leaders are talking about a global summit on climate change for world leaders and they hope President Bush will attend.

"The signal that we received from the science is crystal clear," said Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a multi-national body that tries to change policy to fight global warming.

"That makes it imperative that the political response that comes from this crystal-clear science is as crystal-clear as well.

"I sense a growing sense of urgency to come to grips with the issue," de Boer said. "I think the major challenge is to further the negotiating agenda in a way that makes major players feel safe to step forwardly on this issue."

The major player that has at times been absent is the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

"The world cannot solve the climate change problem without the United States," Achim Steiner, who heads the UN Environment Program, told The Associated Press.

"The world is looking to the Bush administration and to the United States and how it has to be a key part" of solving global warming, he said.

De Boer was optimistic, there too. In an interview, he said that despite U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increasing 16 percent since 1990, change is afoot.

Citing congressional interest and carbon dioxide emission limits requested by top industry CEOs, de Boer said: "I see a very important momentum building throughout the country."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do It Yourself Border Patrol

 eotb-plane.JPG

Folks in Texas Bought a Plane to help Border Sherrifs spot drug smugglers crossing the Mexican Border. You can find how it works at www.eyesontheborder.org


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate Change and Your Money

 
February 1, 2007

France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.

Mr. Chirac spoke as scientists from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss an authoritative international report on climate change, portions of which will be released on Friday.

Mr. Chirac’s critics say that despite his comments in support of environmental measures, his record as president is far from green. He angered environmentalists across the globe when he conducted nuclear tests in a Pacific atoll within months of coming into office in 1995. He has been a loyal ally of French farmers and their pollution-causing practices, blocking some proposed Europe-wide reforms.

Most recently, France’s national plan for allocating carbon emission credits to businesses had to be revised after the European Union rejected it as too generous.


Climate Change is Money out Your Pocket.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save the Planet- This WEEK ONLY

 

Things You Can Do to Save the Planet from Airheads


1.
Learn your place - you will be here for only a few years and will be unable to do too much damage.

2. Learn the difference between Science and Anecdotal Information.

3. Things Change, Things beyond your control happen, including Ice Ages and Warming Cycles.

4. Weathercasts are almost always wrong beyond 5 days.

5. If the Sun explodes or goes cold, all bets are off.

6. Beware of those who profit by trying to make you afraid or feel guilty.

7. Most PhD’s won’t agree on most things.

8. A conscience isn’t Science. Science can be proven and conscience only needs someone to agree.

9. The introduction of oxygen into the environment killed off many of the species that inhabited the earth millions and millions of years ago.

10. In a day a volcanic eruption can pump out more pollution than the entire worlds SUV’s running for years.

11. If you make a mess, please clean it up.

12. The sky will not fall, but you will die. Please don’t get hysterical. It’s nice to have someone say kind words at your funeral and not call you a STUPID SMUG Prius Driving Prick.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Suttons Press Release No Proof of Guilt

 

Asked about Pardons for the Texas Border Patrol Agents setting in Federal Prison the President told Neil Cavuto to look at the court records. Mr. President, after 5 months the records are unavailable. Johnny Sutton and ICE have promised them for months. Ted Poe my Congressman would like to see them, too. The Agents need these records to file an appeal. Most people would have been able to stay out of prison until their appeal has been filed. I believe the loyalty shown to Sutton is misplaced and if the President is aware of the status of this case there will be hell to pay.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dr. Heidi and the Atlanta Fear Factory

 

Has the Weather Channel become a shill for the United Nations global power grab?

Forget about reporting the temp in Cut Bank, the Weather Channel has bitten into the Kyoto hook all the way up to the gills. Possessing all the smugness of homicide bomber seeking virgins in the after life combined with the limited knowledge of a kindergarten valedictorian and the scientific facts of a witch hunter the Weather Channel has become a recognized center of the Chicken Little world.

I‘ve watched the Weather Channel go from bottom T V market sets, talent and production values to a “Mickey Mouse” house of Climate Horror. As far as I know, there has been very little success in man controlling weather, even when we attempt it. Not only do they play on our fears (and guilt) they have the nerve to tell us that we can change the climate. They went from “It Could Happen” to you did it when they hired Dr. Heidi.

This man made global warming drumbeat is going to make a great deal of Kool-Aid drinkers more frustrated and angry as they learn the fact that you can talk about the weather, but it’s almost impossible to do anything about. Remember cloud seeding and how it could stop hurricanes? Global warming is caused by the Sun and one active volcanic eruption can pump more VOC’s into the air in a day than all the SUV’s could produce in years.

If the Hollywood Left really believes in Global Warming, they would be moving from the beaches of the Left Coast and the Isles of New York. Who cares if it makes them feel good about themselves? Maybe the folks at the Weather Channel really think they are saving the planet and the sky is falling. Maybe they are just fools and tools of people who hunger for power and other people’s money?

Kyoto is a fool’s solution to problems that probably doesn’t exist, and if it did we could not change. Kyoto was designed to redistribute our wealth to the rest of the world. Your job and lifestyle would change greatly for the promise of minimal changes and a little smugness.

Come on Accuweather, give these clowns some competition. I’d like to know its going to rain not see how I destroyed the planet.

###

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kyoto Socialist Scheme

 

Harper's letter dismisses Kyoto as 'socialist scheme'

Last Updated: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 | 10:15 PM ET

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

"We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says.

"I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord."

Canada officially ratified the accord Dec. 17, 2002, under Chrétien's Liberal government. Harper's Conservative government, which took power January 2006, has since been accused of ignoring the accord.

Harper's letter goes on to outline why he's against the agreement.

Accord based on 'contradictory' data: Harper

He writes that it's based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is "essential to life."

He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

Under Kyoto, Canada was required to reduce emissions by six per cent by 2012, while economies in transition, like Russia, were allowed to choose different base years.

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," Harper's letter reads.

He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

He wrote in the letter that he would do everything he could to stop Chrétien from passing the Kyoto agreement.

"We will do everything we can to stop him there, but he might get it passed with the help of the socialists in the NDP and the separatists in the BQ [Bloc Québécois]."

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment about the letter on the record.

In recent weeks, Harper has spoken strongly about the environment, saying he will dramatically revamp his minority government's much-criticized clean air act.

His comments come as public-opinion polls indicate the environment has become the number one issue among Canadians.

Liberal MP Mark Holland told the Canadian Press on Tuesday that the leaked letter shows that Harper isn't actually committed to climate change.

"Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going green, the prime minister has launched a new campaign — that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment," Holland said.

"But no one is buying it."

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect Feb. 16, 2005, with 141 countries signing on, including every major industrialized country, except the United States, Australia and Monaco.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary Gives Me Tourette's Syndrome

 

The Sound of her voice causes me to have Violent Ticks and Curse Uncontrollably. To my friends, please forgive my vulgar outburst.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tony, Say it isn’t Snow

 

 

Tony, Say it isn’t Snow

Tony, I heard you tell Laura Ingraham to look at the court records concerning the two border patrol agent sitting in Federal Prison for as far as I know protecting our borders and our kids from undocumented drug smugglers.

There’s a little problem, my Congressman Ted Poe, the attorneys for the border patrol agents and others have been asking for the trial transcripts for more than 4 months. One Texas Congressman that was recently head of the Homeland Security Committee was promised the documents last year and now has been told he’ll need to file a Freedom of Information Act to get the information.

The Border Patrol Agents need the court records to file their appeal. They should be out on bail until their appeals have been heard. If these guys are bad actors they should go to prison, but I have some real problems with finding out what the real truth is.

Problems I see:

  1. They were convicted on the testimony of a self confessed drug smuggler and the fact they removed some shell casings.
  2. The Drug Smuggler may have been caught twice, once with 750 pounds of marijuana when he was shot, and once after he was given immunity to testify against the agents. According the head of the Border Patrol Union the smugglers arrest record was sealed and expunged after he was caught smuggling 1000 pounds of pot into the US.
  3. The closest thing I see to evidence coming from the U.S. Attorney is a press release.

This case is beginning to look like an illegal abortion more than a miscarriage of justice. I believe (and hope) there is more to this case than Tony Snow, the Wall Street Journal and the President know.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putin Thinks He's Chavez

 

Russia Steals $20 Billion Project from Shell



· Russia seizes control of world's biggest liquefied gas project
· Shell forced to give up controlling stake after pressure from Kremlin

Terry Macalister, Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian

Shell is being forced by the Russian government to hand over its controlling stake in the world's biggest liquefied gas project, provoking fresh fears about the Kremlin's willingness to use the country's growing strength in natural resources as a political weapon.

After months of relentless pressure from Moscow, the Anglo-Dutch company has to cut its stake in the $20bn Sakhalin-2 scheme in the far east of Russia in favour of the state-owned energy group Gazprom.

The Russian authorities are also threatening BP over alleged environmental violations on a Siberian field in what is seen as a wider attempt to seize back assets handed over to foreign companies when energy prices were low.

The moves will alarm many investors in the City of London as Shell and other share prices are hit, but the news will also increase ministers' concerns about Britain's energy security.

Russia is becoming a key source of natural gas to the UK and Gazprom has already made clear it would like to buy a company such as Centrica, which owns British Gas. One third of western Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia - a figure expected to rise over the next decade. The security of energy supply is now the main political issue between the EU and the Kremlin. Nervousness about the Russians was heightened last winter when the gas supply to Ukraine was cut off in the middle of a political dispute.

Shell confirmed last night that its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, met Gazprom's chairman, Alexei Miller, in Moscow last Friday but would say only that the talks on Sakhalin-2 were "constructive". The Russian company said that "Shell did indeed make several proposals concerning Sakhalin-2" at the meeting which came after Shell was threatened with having its operating licence withdrawn.

The energy minister, Viktor Khristenko, is expected to give details today of a deal under which Shell and its Japanese partners are likely to get a cash payment in return for giving Gazprom a stake in the project.

Dmitry Peskov, the official spokesman of Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, hit out yesterday at critics in the western media who implicated the Russian government in manipulating oil projects and the poisoning of dissidents. He said there was too much "anti-Russian hysteria".With reference to BP's oil spills in Alaska, he added: "If it's an environmental problem in Alaska it's environmental. If it's in Russia you call it politics."

But other senior politicians in Moscow had no doubt Shell was being harassed into reducing its 55% stake in Sakhalin-2 to something close to 25% through relentless pressure from ministries.

"In the current situation Shell will not be able to defend its economic interests in a civilised process with the Russian authorities, so they will be obliged to give up control if they want to save at least some adequate part of the project," said Vladimir Milov, Russia's former deputy energy minister.

Bob Amsterdam, the lawyer of the jailed oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, said the Kremlin was "once again" using legal pretexts to cover what was essentially an expropriation of private resources in the energy sector. "The Kremlin ought to cease this behaviour," he said.

The Sakhalin-2 project is scheduled to start operations in 2008 and involves finding and producing oil and gas near Sakhalin island, formerly known only as a penal colony during the tsarist and Soviet eras.

The two fields that make up Sakhalin-2 have an estimated 1.2bn barrels of oil and 500bn cubic metres of natural gas. The gas is to be brought ashore, liquefied and frozen before being shipped to customers in Japan and elsewhere.

The scheme created almost immediate controversy with western conservation groups because it involves putting equipment close to breeding grounds of endangered western grey whales. There has also been criticism that sensitive salmon fishing areas are being hit by dumping of dredging spoil waste amid worries about oil spills from platforms in the Okhotsk and Japanese seas.

But even non-governmental organisations have expressed surprise at the way the Russian authorities have taken up environmental issues since the summer after taking little interest before.

Mr Peskov said it was a coincidence of timing and that it was "a process that is natural for every country" to come to eventually. Mr Putin's spokesman said Russia wanted to encourage western investment and wanted closer links with west European countries to foster mutual "interdependence".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Man Made Global Warming Strikes the Alps

 

I sure am glad the Ice Age is over with the warmest winter since 1300 in the Alps.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hurricane Gore Takes Aim on the Ignorant

 

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) - The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season should have above-average activity, a top hurricane researcher said Friday.

Colorado State forecaster William Gray predicted 14 named storms next year, including three major hurricanes and four other hurricanes.

Gray and fellow researcher Philip Klotzbach said fewer hurricanes are likely to make landfall compared to last year, which had the busiest and most destructive hurricane season on record.

It had 28 named storms, including 15 hurricanes, four of which hit the U.S. The worst of those was Katrina, which leveled parts of the Gulf Coast.

This year's season had nine named storms and five hurricanes, two of them major. That was considered a "near normal" season but fell short of predictions by Gray and government scientists.

No hurricanes hit the U.S. Atlantic coast in 2006 - only the 11th time that has occurred since 1945.

Gray's team said a late-developing El Nino contributed to the calmer 2006 season but that those conditions are likely to dissipate before the next June-to-November season.

"Despite a fairly inactive 2006 hurricane season, we believe that the Atlantic basin is in an active hurricane cycle," Gray said. The active cycle is expected to continue for another decade or two, he said


Forget last year,  Al Gore has 20 years to write goofy books and produce stupid movies.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

 

European leaders, who have been sharply critical of the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq, welcomed the U.S. advisory group's report on Iraq as a "necessary course correction" and a first step in a more realistic American view of the conflict.

The report's proposal to engage Iran and Syria found approval _ although talk of beginning a U.S. withdrawal made some officials wary that Washington may press European governments for help they are reluctant to give.



Iraq Study Group Co-Chairmen, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, left, and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton discuss their Group's report while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin told the new French international news channel France 24 late Wednesday: "I think that it is a first step for the Americans to at last see this war in Iraq for what it is."

Karsten Voigt, the German government's coordinator on relations with the U.S., said on n-tv television that: "We should be happy that there is a course correction in the United States."

"If we as Europeans and as Germans can help diplomatically, then we should," he said. "We are also ready to help with reconstruction in Iraq, if the security situation permits."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said he planned to press Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about which of the commission's recommendations the Bush administration planned to implement.

Steinmeier, who meets Rice on Friday in Washington, said he welcomed "the possibility to be able to discuss these details."

Voigt was clear that Germany would not send troops. Andreas Schockenhoff, a deputy leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives in parliament, warned the U.S. against thinking there are "obligations for other NATO partners" from a withdrawal.

The group led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., recommended on Wednesday that U.S. forces largely withdraw from combat over the next year and focus on training Iraqis.

The report also called for stepped-up diplomatic efforts _ including talks with Iran and Syria, which President Bush has previously spurned _ to stabilize Iraq and revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Many Arabs on Thursday interpreted the bleak assessment of Bush's Iraq policies as proof of Washington's failure in the Middle East. But others worried about the consequences if the U.S. follows the Iraq Study Group's suggestions, warning that the report could fuel insurgents and others vying to fill Iraq's security vacuum.

Mustafa Bakri, an outspoken critic of the U.S. and editor of the Egyptian tabloid Al-Osboa, told a state-run television show that the report indicated "the end of America."


Buzzards, Eagles and Turkeys

I believe you can divide Official Washington into 3 aviary types. Buzzards attack other species that are dying. Eagles kill when necessary to feed and protect their own. Turkeys are stupid birds that will stand in the rain and drown.

Our military are mostly eagles

The new congress is mostly Buzzards

The Iraq study group all turkey.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

2nd Opinion

Just recieved this writeup from a PhD Geologist and Geophysist concerning our prospect.

CENTRAL TEXAS TRAVIS VOLCANIC MOUND PROSPECTS

A Texas based company has leases on a magnetic anomaly in central Texas that appears to be a Travis volcanic mound, and thus a potential undiscovered oil field. Travis mounds are ancient volcanoes that erupted during the Late Cretaceous (70 to 80 million years ago) and formed mounds on the shallow sea floor. The mounds were partially eroded and then covered with younger sediments. The mounds in central Texas are generally referred to as “Travis volcanic mounds” for the surface exposure of one of these mounds in Travis County. The mounds are commonly called “serpentine plugs” because the mineral serpentine commonly occurs in the mounds. Some of the minerals that occur in these mounds are magnetic, hence the magnetic anomalies over these mounds. The mounds have formed structurally high areas in the subsurface that provide traps for oil and gas.

Thirty-eight oil fields in central Texas are associated with Travis volcanic mounds. These fields range in size from 3000 barrels to 11,500,000 barrels of oil recovered, and occur at depths between 900 feet and 1800 feet. Some wells in the mound fields have produced as much as 5000 BOPD (barrels of oil per day) initially, but the initial production of most wells was between 25 BOPD and 100 BOPD. Most of the better wells were located near fractures that are prevalent in the mounds. Most of the oil fields that are associated with Travis volcanic mounds were discovered in the 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s, although six fields were discovered between 1913 and 1929 and three fields were discovered between 1964 and 1977. Over half of the fields are still active including some of the early discoveries. Some of the first oil fields found on the Travis volcanic mounds were discovered by farmers drilling water wells.

Oil is found in at least four different geologic settings in the mounds. Much of the oil occurs in porous areas within the generally altered volcanic igneous rocks that form the mounds. Some oil is found in sedimentary rocks (sandstones and limestones) within the mounds, some oil occurs in sedimentary rocks that overlie the mounds, and some oil is trapped in sedimentary rocks that pinch out on the flanks of the mounds. Thus there are non-productive areas within the confines of the fields associated with the mounds. This prospect appears to cover about 300 acres.

The magnetic anomaly associated with this prospect is comparable to the anomalies associated with one million to three million barrel fields, although the size and intensity of magnetic anomalies is sometimes misleading. Most of the magnetic anomalies that occur in the area are associated with Travis volcanic mounds. The other magnetic anomalies have not been drilled but are believed to be Travis volcanic mounds. A geochemical survey acquired recently found significant (anomalous) concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil over the prospect. This suggests minute leakage from an accumulation of hydrocarbons at depth. Additionally, the operator has acquired satellite data that suggest the presence of soil within the prospect that has been altered mineralogically. This condition has been observed in soils over known oil and gas fields. All of these data together suggest a fairly high probability that a commercial accumulation of hydrocarbons (likely oil) exists under the prospect.

There is no record of a well having been drilled on the prospect. There are few records pertaining to wells that were drilled before 1930, so it is possible that an old unrecorded dry hole has been drilled on the prospect. A local fellow born in 1920 is not aware of an old well having been drilled in the prospect area, however. About seven or eight percent of the wells drilled within the Travis volcanic mound fields are dry holes because they were drilled in the small non-productive areas within most of the fields. We believe that there is a fairly high probability that this prospect is a Travis volcanic mound with a commercial accumulation of oil. There is a five to ten percent probability, however, that the first well would miss the oil field and be a dry hole. A discovery well would likely find a field with 500,000 barrels to 3,000,000 barrels of oil recoverable, although the field could be larger or smaller. A dry hole (1300 feet deep) would cost about $80,000, and a completed producing well would cost about $200,000 or less. This is a very small risk when one has the potential to find $10,000,000 to $60,000,000 net income. Additionally, the operator has two other Travis volcanic mound prospects that would be available.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive