Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[blueski]

Originally Posted by ae118

I read this thread regularly, and I'm really surprised that several of you seem to doubt either that climate change is a phenomenon and/or that humans have a large part in it, even further arguing that it's some sort of rhetorical issue for the left rather than something for which there is broad scientific consensus. Among climate scientists, there certainly is. Are any of you climate scientists?

Of course climate change is real. And yes adding CO2 will increase the green house effect. What I don't believe though is any notion that science knows how much the temperature will increase by and at what rate. I also don't believe that science can measure temperature trends across any significant duration of time and this is needed if we are going to be making any meaningful policy decisions.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I already hate that I opened my mouth here because I'm going to have to give the same clarifications over and over. I don't doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is that the sole and largest reason that we have seen this warming? Surely there are many other factors? What precipitated the temperature increase following the mini ice-age? Are those factors still prevalent today?

It's the greenhouse gas that compromises of ~80% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is not the sole reason for the normal and abnormal greenhouse effect happening right now. It isn't even the worst greenhouse gas, CO2 and CH4 are the easiest for humans to change and have a meaningful effect or consequence on our climate. CO2 counts for ~50% and CH4 ~30% of human related greenhouse production.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have the education. I probably don't have the time and who knows about the stamina. I'm already bored with this because it degenerates into partisanship and personal attacks almost instantly. I also love the idea that we can trust scientists who say that the globe is warming and its man made, but those "other" scientists who are engineers and geophysicists are just crackpots.

Anyway, I'm probably done with this. I will read a bunch of the materials when I have more time, but probably won't bother posting more on the topic here. Sorry for the derailing of the oil thread though!

Every question that you have, has an answer contained in those websites.

Forgive me, but Slava, my understanding is that your education is in Finance. Even you should realize the fundamental differences in Finance and Sciences (Physics, Chem and Bio). Actual scientists, with double degrees and PhDs in Physics and Chemistry that say climate change is a huge issue.

BTW, global warming is but one aspect of climate change, ie, climate change is the bigger umbrella.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by blueski

Of course climate change is real. And yes adding CO2 will increase the green house effect. What I don't believe though is any notion that science knows how much the temperature will increase by and at what rate. I also don't believe that science can measure temperature trends across any significant duration of time and this is needed if we are going to be making any meaningful policy decisions.

From one of the websites troutman posted:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

[Looch City]

People have no problem accepting everyday things in life that are beyond their understanding and education. For example, cars and computers. Do you truly know how each part works and functions? No, you trust the experts behind the scene and their knowledge.

And then we get to global warming and vaccines (yes I'm equating the two) where the experts (scientists) are now seen as skeptical and untrustworthy. So now everyday people think they know more about a huge subject than the experts themselves.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Izzle

From one of the websites troutman posted:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Curve fitting.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Add in the fact that a lot of them do not have a post degree education in Science (not engineering... but science), all these reports become doubly daunting.

I'm not a climate change skeptic, am an engineer, and find this very offensive. The piece of parchment I have says B.Sc (Eng) on it, and I would suggest the huge amount of thermodynamics I took is at least as relevant to this matter as the people who took Biology degrees and think that makes them experts on the greenhouse effect. (Which I submit is actually mostly physics)

Of course, I'm not sure if you meant "post graduate" or "post secondary" when you said "post degree education." I don't have any post-graduate degrees.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Every question that you have, has an answer contained in those websites.

Forgive me, but Slava, my understanding is that your education is in Finance. Even you should realize the fundamental differences in Finance and Sciences (Physics, Chem and Bio). Actual scientists, with double degrees and PhDs in Physics and Chemistry that say climate change is a huge issue.

BTW, global warming is but one aspect of climate change, ie, climate change is the bigger umbrella.

A large part of the discussion has to do with finance, at least enough to create a question of motivation in some of the science.

As well, having some education in something should in theory give you some ability in life long learning and thus having an ability to form some kind of opinion.

[Hack&Lube]

My gut feeling is that when a lot of people say that they don't believe in climate change or they don't believe the science is in yet that they are really saying "I don't care about climate change and it's a waste of time and money". For many people, they are just worrying about their economy and day to day lives and pragmatic things and don't understand why everybody else is so up in arms about it and asking them to pay more taxes and change their behavioral patterns.

[V]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Forgive me, but Slava, my understanding is that your education is in Finance. Even you should realize the fundamental differences in Finance and Sciences (Physics, Chem and Bio). Actual scientists, with double degrees and PhDs in Physics and Chemistry that say climate change is a huge issue.

Scientists are just people that couldn't handle first year engineering.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have the education. I probably don't have the time and who knows about the stamina. I'm already bored with this because it degenerates into partisanship and personal attacks almost instantly. I also love the idea that we can trust scientists who say that the globe is warming and its man made, but those "other" scientists who are engineers and geophysicists are just crackpots.

Anyway, I'm probably done with this. I will read a bunch of the materials when I have more time, but probably won't bother posting more on the topic here. Sorry for the derailing of the oil thread though!

It only devolves into partisanship because people like you refuse to take a look at the massive amount of scientific data and go and say things like this.

It generally goes like this:

You: Climate change is a joke!
Us: No it isn't, here is a huge mountain of data that shows otherwise. You haven't shown a single piece of data that shows otherwise.
You: I don't believe the data.
Us: That's not a rational stance. The vast majority of qualified people have agreed that this is the case. You saying otherwise is just flat out wrong.
You: Why does this always devolve into partisan debate and name calling?

This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of fact.

As for those "Other" Scientists, you're saying that like this is an even split.
The reality is that the vast majority (>90%) of scientists and data point towards one conclusion, and those that don't generally don't have the same qualifications, verification, or rigor that the more reliable data/scientists do.

Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people with much more education, experience, and qualifications in this field haven't considered other mechanisms for warming? Do you honestly believe that you are on to something that they are not? Do you not see how irrational that stance is?

I can tell you that I've not read all of the material presented here, but I've read enough, and heard enough from qualified people that know more than I do, that I'm willing to trust their expertise on a subject that I am, at best, an interested amateur on.

Thinking that you know better, and are in a better position to evaluate this data than thousands of people who have spent their lives working on this sort of thing is just plain ignorant and vain.

Would you in your wildest dreams go tell Stephen Hawking that he's wrong about black holes, because you've got some uneducated ideas about them? I'm guessing no. So what's different about this subject that you think you know more than the experts?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by blueski

Of course climate change is real. And yes adding CO2 will increase the green house effect. What I don't believe though is any notion that science knows how much the temperature will increase by and at what rate. I also don't believe that science can measure temperature trends across any significant duration of time and this is needed if we are going to be making any meaningful policy decisions.

Why don't you believe that?
Do you have any experience, education or qualifications to make that determination, or is it just a gut feeling?

I'm guessing it's the latter, and as I said to Slave, that is the most irrational position you could possibly take.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

A large part of the discussion has to do with finance, at least enough to create a question of motivation in some of the science.

I would think the financial motivation on the other side of the debate (ie multi-billion dollar corporations and economies looking to keep the status quo), vastly out-weights what some scientists looking to get grant funding might benefit from.

I mean the vast majority of O/G Calgarians would continue to benefit financially if the whole global warming thing was a hoax, yet even they understand the realities. These days, the argument is not about questioning the environmental impact, it's typically about the economic impact.

[heep223]

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming with a public service announcement. Oil up 20% in the last two days. Dead cat bounce before another plunge, sign of recovery, relief rally, whatever - it's just nice to not walk into the office to red screens for a few days.

Carry on.

[polak]

Originally Posted by heep223

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming with a public service announcement. Oil up 20% in the last two days. Dead cat bounce before another plunge, sign of recovery, relief rally, whatever - it's just nice to not walk into the office to red screens for a few days.

Carry on.

We have had Sportscenter on all of our tv's for most of January cause the markets we're so depressing.

[DoubleK]

doubly posted

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by heep223

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming with a public service announcement. Oil up 20% in the last two days. Dead cat bounce before another plunge, sign of recovery, relief rally, whatever - it's just nice to not walk into the office to red screens for a few days.

Carry on.

Short covering.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm not a climate change skeptic, am an engineer, and find this very offensive. The piece of parchment I have says B.Sc (Eng) on it, and I would suggest the huge amount of thermodynamics I took is at least as relevant to this matter as the people who took Biology degrees and think that makes them experts on the greenhouse effect. (Which I submit is actually mostly physics)

Of course, I'm not sure if you meant "post graduate" or "post secondary" when you said "post degree education." I don't have any post-graduate degrees.

My apologies. After re-reading that post I wrote and your subsequent post, I have used a broad brush to paint all engineers. I have two mechanical engineer friends and they dont believe in climate change and that may have tainted my view.

I did mean to say post graduate studies.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

I used to have a similar stance to Slava, and many many others, on climate change, but had to alter my viewpoint when the IPCC issued it's 5th assessment report which, for the first time since it was formed in 1988, concluded that climate change was man made. Up until their 5th report, they hesitated to conclude that.

Also, even if climate change is the impetus for us to start migrating away from fossil fuels to feed our energy needs, this had to happen regardless. I know "peak oil" isn't a topic of conversation these days, but the fact remains it's a finite resource. We (those alive today) don't have to live without fossil fuels, but we might as well start setting up future generations to do so.

[SeeGeeWhy]

A few things here.

1. The climate change "debate" is interesting because it ultimately pits Left wing against right wing ideology. Which is why I am a bit surprised to see Slava on the "right" side of the debate, being a Liberal supporter, you must be more centrist than I understood . We saw a similar campaign of doubt being played in the 80s and 90s after communism collapsed with the tobacco industry witch hunts. The left v right needed a new battleground, and its gone back to "big v small" government, health/science/energy policy has proven to be a ripe arena.

There is no doubt that the greenhouse effect is real, or that we have been contributing to it, or that it is incredible risky and downright foolish to even be treading the line. There is so much we don't understand. What happens when we get back into a natural warming cycle and the Earth's natural ability to buffer the changes has been compromised by our impacts? At what point does the effect run away and Earth becomes like Venus? Why the hell do we even want to try to find out?

2. To debate our ability to control temperature is a moot point and a red herring. Adapting to a changing planet is something our race will always need to be aware of, and DO, if we hope to survive. Energy policy should be being debated right now, because the energy return on energy invested is dropping precipitously, and when that happens, a society faces a great deal of collapsing pressures. These pressures will be felt in OUR lifetime. We have to provide cheaper, cleaner, safer, more abundant energy to billions more people around the world and INDEPENDENT of the climate debate, this cannot be done with hydrocarbon or renewables.

3. The Oil ETF discussion was interesting a few days ago. For those retail investors who fancied themselves clever for being involved in them are being reminded today why you shouldn't go up against institutional investors in a rigged game. I am beginning to suspect more and more that the massive drop out in oil price is a market struggling to convert from being demand driven to supply driven, amplified by market manipulations, super rapid derivative training... or as they say in the link "oil is the new subprime".