End of the Road for Fossil Fuels in Sight

July 15, 2015

bloombergfossiltorenewBloomberg:

The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there’s no going back.

The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.

“The electricity system is shifting to clean,” Michael Liebreich, founder of BNEF, said in his keynote address. “Despite the change in oil and gas prices there is going to be a substantial buildout of renewable energy that is likely to be an order of magnitude larger than the buildout of coal and gas.”

Recommended, Amory Lovins recent post on this topic:

Instability and surplus are both occurring today, but surplus is proving more important. The world market is glutted with several million extra barrels per day (Mbbl/d), mainly from fracked U.S. oil and Canadian tar sands. The U.S. is now the world’s largest oil producer, with output at a 31-year high.

Late last year, the Saudis and allies announced they wouldn’t cut output to rebalance the market as they had in the past. Why should they? They’d simply give up market share to higher-cost producers. And the Saudis didn’t cause the imbalance; North Americans and other non-OPEC members did.

Until recently, only the Saudis (and to a lesser extent their Gulf allies) had big surplus production capacity, and at the world’s lowest cost. Saudi oil costs about one-tenth as much to extract as fracked U.S. oil or Alberta tar sands need to break even. Now an added reality is roiling markets: only the Saudis have enough cash to weather a prolonged price drop. While Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, and Nigeria are financially stressed, the Saudis claim 2.5 Mbbl/d spare oil capacity and $0.7–0.9 trillion of monetary reserves — enough to sustain several years of $50 oil and keep funding their $40-billion renewable-power program (meant to save oil for export).

Against that backdrop, competitors are fish in a barrel. The biggest oil companies’ capital expenditures quintupled since 2000 but their production barely budged. That’s a seriously diminishing return per barrel at any price, let alone lower prices that undermine profitability. When oil prices suddenly fell nearly 60 percent in seven months, firms frantically cut costs and axed massive Arctic, deepwater, and other high-cost projects. In what analysts Wood Mackenzie call “the biggest threat to oil and gas industry earnings and financial solidity since the financial crash of 2008,” investments may fall by $200+ billion this year.

Tar-sand and fracking operators will be severely tested: frackers in the oil-rich Bakken are producing a gusher of red ink despite falling service costs and continuing technological improvement. Even those North American operators who survive the downturn may lose skittish investors to safer pursuits — such as renewable power, whose lower risks now attract capital several percentage points cheaper than utilities get. It was, after all, the former Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who famously said, “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”

Frackers, sweating on the junk-bond treadmill to keep drilling to sustain cashflow, are praying oil prices will rebound swiftly. Their prayers may go unanswered. Drilling has fallen in peripheral areas but continues in the richest core areas, such as the North American Bakken, keeping output high and prices low. Meanwhile, inventories of cheaper oil are brimming — at their highest U.S. level since 1931. These huge stockpiles may require even bigger supply cuts to rebalance the market. That prolongation could prove very painful for frackers and their investors, and fatal for tar-sands operators, with oil prices remaining low enough to deter new fracking. The simplest way to raise prices would be for oil giants to stop mining their money-losing Alberta tar sands whose oil the Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to carry.

Cheaper oil’s basic dynamic could become self-reinforcing. It defers development of costlier, often higher-carbon resources. This buys more time for efficiency and renewables to get bigger, hence cheaper, hence bigger, hence cheaper — even as cheaper oil seems to superficially compete with them — further softening demand and requiring even bigger supply cuts that take still longer. The next stage of the mobility revolution begins to emerge too, replacing many private autos with shareable and even autonomous ones powered by electricity, not gasoline. All the while, oil demand drops further, deepening drillers’ distress.

Some alarmists — including The Independent in a December 2014 article — have warned “the collapsing oil price…could derail the green energy revolution by making renewable power sources prohibitively bad value.” Except that, as Bloomberg and others have countered, that’s precisely wrong.

What does the renewable energy revolution have to do with cheaper oil? Almost nothing, and that’s the point. Less than five percent of the world’s electricity and less than one percent of U.S. electricity is made from oil, so oil and renewable power scarcely compete. Electricity’s competitive landscape is virtually oil-free except on some islands and such other remote sites as mines and military bases where imported diesel and heavy fuel oil power the generators. On the contrary, cheaper oil means less fracked oil, less byproduct natural gas, higher gas prices, hence even more-competitive wind and solar power. And as batteries get cheaper, electric cars will increasingly threaten oil’s core mobility market.

Advertisements

29 Responses to “End of the Road for Fossil Fuels in Sight”

  1. Gingerbaker Says:

    The graph shows a mere doubling of 2015 renewables levels by 2030. That is a prognostication of disaster – it is not anywhere close to being enough deployment or soon enough.

    This is the growth rate of laissez-faire economics. What we need, though, is government policy, government funding, government projects. If we continue to rely on the free market to build us our renewable energy, we are going to fail. And we will wind up wasting as much money as it would cost to accomplish our goal efficiently.

    Only the imprimatur and fiduciary power of national government can solve this National Security issue. We can’t settle for anything else.


  2. I am sure you are correct, but it is very difficult to determine that from the information presented. What is really needed is an emissions projection based on the forecast’s expected use of fossil fuels. That would very likely show that the UNFCCC carbon budget would be significantly exceeded (not to mention the fact that the carbon budget is way to high because of the expected feedbacks from a warming world).

  3. jimbills Says:

    On the top two graphs, the reference “Power generation capacity additions (GW)” was left off (I’m also assuming -per year- was left off the original source). In other words, renewables will increase dramatically, but fossil carbon will ALSO increase into 2030. Renewables will take the lion’s share of growth, but we’ll still have our installed fossil carbon sources, which will also continue to grow.

    Current world installed electricity (only) as of 2012 (it’s difficult to find more recent numbers) was 5,555 GW – 3,606 GW of which was fossil carbon. The projections above don’t lower total fossil carbon use to 2030 – but they do add to the total energy installed.

    The percentages to 2030-2035 will change subtly, with coal and oil dropping a few percent of the total. The IEA puts it like this:
    http://image.slidesharecdn.com/cospresentationtdsecuritiescalgary-finalpdf-140731153727-phpapp01/95/canadian-oil-sands-recent-investor-presentation-2014-td-securities-calgary-energy-conference-17-638.jpg?cb=1406821281

    A group focusing on ‘new energy finance’ will naturally have a different take, and the actual numbers are likely to be somewhere in the middle of their projections and the IEA’s – but the new energy finance projection’s pies wouldn’t be significantly different than the IEA’s by 2030-2035 if they drew them up using the numbers projected above.

    Also left out of the source article was how the world is falling significantly behind the necessary yearly renewable financing to meet targets to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C.

    The IEA is drawing up new energy projections, which will be released in November. They are a conservative source, but they also had this release in June:
    http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015SpecialReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf

    “What impact will the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by governments have on the energy sector and its related greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions?”

    (Keep in mind – these are the non-binding promises by governments. They might or might not achieve them, but it’s reasonable to assume that there will be a lot of newly installed renewables in most country’s plan to achieve their targets.)

    “In the INDC Scenario, annual global energy- and process-related GHG emissions grow from 37.5 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2-eq) in 2013 to 40.6 Gt CO2-eq by 2030. If stronger action were not forthcoming after 2030, the emissions path in the INDC Scenario is estimated to be consistent with a 50% probability of an average long-term global temperature increase of around 2.6 °C in 2100 and 3.5 °C in the longer term (after 2200). This global average translates into higher average temperatures over land – 4.3 °C over land in the northern hemisphere (where the majority of the world’s population lives) – and higher still in urban areas.”


  4. As usual, Carbon Counter does a good job regarding the numbers, check his blog on renewable energy hype. He also does a good job on exposing Elon Musk huge miscalculation… (who was featured on this blog several times):

    https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/a-book-recommendation-for-elon-musk/

    best,

    Alex

    • MorinMoss Says:

      How do you “expose” something that was said in public? Isn’t that was exposed means?

      Do you mean that Musk was wildly wrong in his claim that solar can match nuclear if the “clear area” is taken into account?

      In the YouTube video presented at your link from 18:30 – 19:00, Musk defines the “clear area” as a circle of 3 – 5 km around the plant so a zone of 30 – 80 sq km.

      Since this is about nuclear, let’s focus on the global champs, le pays glorieux de la Frrrrrance.

      At the latitude of Paris, the daily insolation varies from 0.85 – 5.13 kWh/sq – m per day with a rough average of 3 kWh/sq-m daily which would be the avg insolation of late March, delivered across ~13 hrs of daylight giving 0.23 kW per sq-m.

      Still with me? Yes? Excellent.
      So every sq km would receive ONE MILLION times that power or 230 MW.
      But solar PV is only able to convert ~20% of that into electricity so we can only count on 46 MW per sq-km which give 1.2 – 3.5 GW electricity.
      In Paris. In March.
      So someone’s gonads may be on shameful public display but it ain’t Elon’s.


      • Hello Morin,

        I am not particularly fond of “billionaires” claiming their interest in “saving” the world, but anyway, energy density is the key factor here. Simply, power density (not to mention stability) of solar devices is much, much lower compared to nuclear (in this case).

        I am not against solar, or nuclear power (for that matter). But I am definitely against hype and huge energy consumption we have.

        Best,

        Alex

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Yes, but is MM’s math wrong?

        • MorinMoss Says:

          And I’m not fond of billionaires who are deeply invested in destroying our environment for their own gain.

          There are no perfect solutions although I still have a very faint hope to live to see one.
          There are +ves and -ves to both distributed and centralized.
          Rooftop solar may be very diffuse by comparison but it can generate electricity very, very close to the point of use. For most nuke plants, the energy is transmitted tens or hundreds of kilometers away.

          Solar production tends to track demand quite well for most of North America; current nuclear designs work best as baseload and ramping them up & down is both difficult and uneconomical.

          While solar panels can operate for 20 years, it’s not a big deal to replace them either wholly or piecemeal in case of failure or due to ones of superior efficiency becoming available.
          If you’re replacing a nuclear reactor before 30 – 40 yrs are up, either something has gone terribly wrong or you’re about to lose a LOT of money.
          And whatever you do, don’t install the 400-ton pressure vessel backwards .

          If my solar controller or inverter dies, it’s a bad day for me (just an example, I don’t have rooftop solar) but my neighbors probably won’t notice.
          If something at or upstream of your “power dense” nuclear plant fails, it could be a bad day for an entire state.
          For example, Feb 27, 2008 was a bad day for Texas when there was a sudden 1.5 GW drop in wind power production.
          www .reuters. com/article/2008/02/28/us-utilities-ercot-wind-idUSN2749522920080228 (remove spaces to get to link)

          But since wind is KNOWN to be fickle, ERCOT reacted by cutting power to interruptible industrial customers and there was no blackout.
          That VERY day, Florida saw about 3 million people left in the dark and stuck in elevators when a GW of oh-so-reliable nuclear went missing because of automatic shutdowns when a substation fire triggered a faulty disconnect switch.
          In 2008, sunny FL had only 4 MW solar while stalwart Germany, 1500 miles further north already had 6 GIGAwatts installed.

        • MorinMoss Says:

          By the way, I’ve posted a few comments on Carbon Counter regarding his post about Elon’s comment on nuclear & solar. I don’t think he’s too happy with my rebuttals so it’s likely not in your best interest to let him know that I only found his blog because of you.

  5. rogerthesurf Says:

    Why are we always accused of being minions of Big Oil when we speak up using facts, against the religious people who push the Anthropogenic Global Warming and Extreme Sustainability line, acting just like the sheep do in Orwell’s book “Animal Farm”?

    Unfortunately for me, I have never received any offer from anyone let alone any fuel organisation, but then I am only a small fish it seems.

    However I did, with only a little digging, find this information about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fossil fuel in the United States until his company was broken up by the introduction of the Sherman Act, which I know a little about because I studied it as an undergraduate.

    I am of course talking about the Rockefeller family.

    Here are some facts which I looked up recently. The Rockefellers are a bit sneaky and tend to show their allegiances with discretion and one has to chase them a bit. However this is what I found.

    Simply a fraction of where they are involved I suspect.

    The Rockefeller family are supporters of the following and I give the web address so you can look for yourself. However they tend to use slightly different names and often support organisations via another organisation. If you follow the financial trail, of which most “non profit” organisations are usually required to display by the law of their origin, very often the Rockefellers appear.

    Here are some examples of what I have found.

    1 United Nations http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/partners/organizations/rockefeller-brothers-fund.html

    2. ICLEI http://www.iclei.org/en/climate-roadmap/advocacy/global-lg-events/worldmayorssummit/high-level-dialogue-on-financing-local-climate-action.html

    3. Resilience http://www.100resilientcities.org/ http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/RESILIENCE-Resilient-Cities-Acceleration-Initiative.pdf

    4 Oceanwatch Sailing via http://www.conservation.org

    http://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/CI_FY14_AnnualReport.pdf

    5 IUCN http://www.iucn.org via 6. WWF http://www.iucn.org/about/union/donors/companies/

    Are Rockefellers involved with the WWF? A little tricky to trace but http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_international_corporate_partnerships_report_2014.pdf

    Which mention 7 IMD as one of its major supporters. Lets check there.
    https://extranet.who.int/iris/restricted/bitstream/10665/65575/1/WHO_EIP_IMD_99.1.pdf

    IMD seems to be an arm of the WHO.
    Who is a supporter of W.H.O. then? And why does the WHO support the WWF?
    http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/ search for “rockefeller”
    http://www.who.int/en/ search for “rockefeller”

    Of course someone else has already catalogued this:
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5322&category=79

    Oops, I almost forgot to include this beneficiary of the Rockerfellers.

    350.org

    https://globalwarmingsupporter.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/350-funded-by-rbf.pdf

    Here is a little history.
    https://cut2thetruth.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/economics-rockefellers-leaving-oil-business/
    It seems that no matter where you go in the “green” or “sustainability” world you trip over the Rockefellers .

    Exactly who has Big Oil on their side then?

    And believe me, the Rockefellers are not the sort of people who give out money without thinking of whats in it for them!

    Actually fossil fuel energy organisations love green, sustainability and AGW.

    These “philosophies” ( If they are worthy of the name) will actually benefit oil companies and the like. I don’t mean the miner at the bottom of the heap but those who control it.

    Here is why.

    Greens bleat out “Don’t use oil it is about to run out and it is heating up the planet.

    Oil companies interpret that as “Fossil fuel will always be needed but restrict the supply? Great, can do – We know that will make the price sky rocket, so we can produce less oil, get a huge price and still make as much or more money as before but with fewer expenses! A businessman’s dream!

    Read more about the Rockefellers here.

    http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    This blog is generally quite reliable as I have verified many of the things said here from other sources.

    Pity about the Rockefellers funding the AGW lobby though.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    PS, if you feel you are unableto publish this well documented comment, do not despair, I will publish it for you on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com

    • greenman3610 Says:

      I rely on folks like you to make my points.Thanks, Roger.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yes, folks like Roger are the gift that keeps on giving. I am a bit confused though—Roger’s “well-documented” collection of horsepucky is just one huge non sequitur.

        “However I did find this information about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fossil fuel in the United States…”????

        Lord love a duck, but that is meaningless, in that Rockefeller is long dead and a “danger” to no one, the fortune that began with his oil company is now managed by his heirs, they are divesting from fossil fuels, and the Exxon-Mobils, Shells, and other present day oil companies who are keeping AGW afloat have NO real connection to Rockefellers alive or deceased.

        Can anyone explain to me what “point” Roger is trying to make here? Particularly when talking about how “sneaky” the Rockefellers are?

        BTW, going to Roger’s site will allow you to see some of Roger’s skills at Math. He disputes the 97% versus 3% figures, and does so by making math errors that the average 3rd. grader would not make. Unless he is trying to misinform or disinform or obfuscate—now THAT’S “sneaky”!

  6. rogerthesurf Says:

    dumboldguy,

    Not a problem,

    Just point out my arithmetic errors that you see and I will correct them – free of charge.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • dumboldguy Says:

      https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/

      Take a look there and find:

      “Well I cannot see any 3% there can you?” and all the twisted math associated with it.

      Yes. Roger, ALL of us who look at Cook’s figures can find 3%, and the efforts that the deniers like you still make as you attempt to confuse and obfuscate the truth is getting to be very “old” and tiresome. (To say nothing about the fact that it’s no longer 97 to 3 but 99.9 to .1).

      You are shameless in your lying and twisting of the truth, Roger. Only a lying POS would dare post the following and expect people to swallow it.

      “VERY LIKELY they believe, as I do, that a small amount of warming is cause by humans but it is of NO consequence”.

      “Did he just use the top 64 papers (endorsement 1) to come up with his 97%? Maybe but THAT FIGURE WOULD HARDLY PROVE VERY MUCH IN MOST PEOPLES VIEW”

      “Maybe you can help. Here are Cook Et Al’s data” And you insult us by posting a link to 492 pages?. Or was that a joke? There is no need for any of us to do an independent rebuttal of your horseshit, since it has been done so many times already. Just like the Oregon Petition has been debunked and discredited (but still has a zombie life in the denier blogosphere).

      “Actually it is a case of cherry picking the data in my and MOST peoples view”.

      “It is obvious that the WHOLE STUDY IS ACTUALLY MEANINGLESS”.

      You just throw out bald assertion after bald assertion, Roger. Pitiful. Don’t bother trying to “correct” your math for us. Just go away. Spend your time in the echo chambers and circular firing squads of the low-IQ denier and right wing blogosphere, where people will nod in agreement with your every word (as they wipe the drool from their chins).

      Cheers, my ass.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        You aren’t being very hospitable to our new house guest rogerthesmurf. And it is not often we get a anti-semitic climate-denying skilled cut-and-paste expert politely ringing the front doorbell.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          WHOA! Just because rogerthe(stupidest)smurf goes out of his way to make an irrelevant attack on Rockefeller means he is an anti-semite? That is perhaps a bit of an overreach, since Rockefeller wasn’t Jewish. From JONJ:

          “Somewhere, in a bunker underneath Switzerland…

          “Order! Order! Please finish up your bagels, we’re about to start. The fourteenth annual meeting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is now open, Chairman Rubinstein presiding. We’ll start with the roll call, as usual. Rothschild?”

          “Present.”

          “Rosen?”

          “Here.”

          “Rabinovich?”

          “He went home, Chairman. Food poisoning.”

          “I knew we shouldn’t have gone with the no frills herring. Rockefeller?”

          (silence)

          “Rockefeller?”

          “Chairman, Rockefeller is not Jewish.”

          “What do you mean, he is not Jewish?”

          “He is Baptist.”

          “Baptist? How can that be? He’s the richest person in the world! How can he not be Jewish?”

          “Chairman, the goyim can be rich as well.”

          “Goyim can be rich? That’s absurd!”

          “Not as absurd as the world’s richest Jews meeting in a bunker underneath Switzerland…”

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            Yes, no doubt rogerthesmurf was talking about the influence of a cabal of Baptist bankers on the United Nations. Silly me.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            If you’re serious, that’s “silly anti-semitic you”.
            (with a taste of conspiracy nutjob as well)

      • rogerthesurf Says:

        Dumbboldguy,

        So sorry you don’t have the skills to verify or otherwise Cook Et Al’s data.

        I got the data from Cook Et Al’s paper which was on his publishers web site.
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media

        You will see the data is available on the links lower on the page.
        or use http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt to go straight there.

        Oh you mean the data means nothing to you? Well I am so sorry that you do not have the skills that enable you to assess the data yourself – but of course I should have guessed that by your name.

        Also it is a pretty dumb thing to attack the person when you disagree with what he says, just makes your name so much more appropriate.

        So why don’t you sit down and read all those papers, after a few years of careful reading you might come a conclusion of your own. I agree that it is very dangerous to believe everything that you are told.

        Of course you might follow Cook’s method which will save you time, and then see if you can extract 3%/97% out of that. That’s what I did.

        Since you are of such a higher I.Q. than I you may even think of a better way to do it.

        Don’t worry if Greenman won’t publish this comment because I can do it for him at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com which I notice you visited.

        Oh that gentleman who accused me of being antisemetic for some reason, could you please tell him that I could hardly be antisemetic because I am Jewish myself – and proud of it. Maybe its where I got my brains from. Thank you for defending me though.

        Maybe you need to start thinking for yourself and stop believing what people are telling you.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Stupidest Smurf,

          You are moronic enough to say to me with a straight face “So sorry you don’t have the skills to verify or otherwise Cook Et Al’s data”?. LMAO. YOU are the one who is “lacking in skills”, since you apparently didn’t even read the abstract of the paper or didn’t understand it—-to wit, Cook says:

          “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

          (PAY ATTENTION HERE)
          Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

          Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research”.

          Can you do the math, moron? Of the papers expressing any position on AGW, it was 32.6% supporting and 1% rejecting or uncertain. Those figures added together become the “new” 100%, and the 32+ becomes 97 and the 1 becomes 3. Ask any third grader for help.

          And what “data” did you get from the web site? You didn’t even read the abstract or understand the math. You don’t expect us to believe that you did anything with the 492 pages of references, like obtain and independently analyze them? Bullshit!

          I am content to read what Cook said and believe it—-I respect him as someone who has proven many times that he speaks truth about AGW. I have read all the studies that support his thesis (and we’re now at 99.9% consensus) as well as the mindless horseshit attacking his thesis from ignorant deniers like you that can’t even do the math.

          “Of course you might follow Cook’s method which will save you time, and then see if you can extract 3%/97% out of that. That’s what I did”. More bullshit! I believe Cook. Tell us exactly what you “did” that arrived at anything other than his 3%/97%.

          As for your closing remarks about antisemitism and being Jewish. I will paraphrase and say—-“I grew up in North Jersey and knew a lot of intelligent Jews, and you’re not one of them”. The proof of that is that you can’t even spell ANTISEMITIC, you freaking moron—-any Jew with anything near even low-average intelligence can spell the word. And I was not defending you but merely grab-assing with Gingerbaker over your irrelevant Rockefeller BS.

          I’m done with you on this thread. I’ll say it again—-go away.

          .

          • rogerthesurf Says:

            Dumboldguy old son,

            Tell us exactly what you “did” that arrived at anything other than his 3%/97%.

            Well Dumboldguy, I did exactly what Cook did, I looked at his data,and no-one including myself can see how he got this 97% out of it.

            Now let me explain something that you appear to have missed.

            An academic paper like Cooks has to be based on something tangible, in this case the data which you are unable to understand – possibly because your name is well chosen, and if independent people such as myself and other scientists who are more famous than I, cannot reach the same conclusion as Cook does in his paper,we have a problem.

            This is because in science and truth, the data is king. If your paper and data have no relationship then the paper and the publisher of the paper can only be suspected as having some sort of agenda.

            This is not rocket science.

            Now you have the chance to prove me wrong on this. I gave you the data in good faith.
            Why don’t you show me how Cook came to his conclusions by looking at the data. The data is from his publisher, its what Cook said he used.
            If you can show me logically how Cook got to his conclusions, why I might even withdraw my criticisms.

            So go for it.

            If you are unable to use that data because you don’t know how, maybe you should not pretend that you are smart at all.

            By the way, I always look at the data when I read an academic paper.

            This is why I believe AGW is a spoof because I see so often that the science in this subject does not match the empirical data.

            Cheers

            Roger
            http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

          • dumboldguy Says:

            That’s it, Stupidest Smurf. You are either dumber than a brick or so far into your sick conservative denialism of science and truth that you are beyond reasoning with. This is my last response to you on this thread. You may now have the last word—I am sure you will use it to further embarrass yourself, just as you did here in this comment. You are another one of those I describe as “the demented roosters strutting and crowing in the barnyard over their imagined victories”. Have at it.

            You speak of “science”, but nothing you say shows that you have had any training in science or scientific method. You can’t even answer my questions.

            You again say “I did exactly what Cook did, I looked at his data,and no-one including myself can see how he got this 97% out of it”. Mindless denial. Did you not see the explanation I gave about how he arrived at the 97%? Have you not read that others have looked at his work and agreed with him and that others have done similar work that supports his findings?

            You maunder on about “tangible data” but refuse to explain what “data” you are talking about. You refuse to answer my query as to whether you read all 11,000+ papers and won’t name the “scientists who are more famous than you who cannot reach the same conclusion as Cook does in his paper”—-you are, by the way, obviously not a scientist at all, never mind famous for anything other than the insane BS you post on your blog.

            You say. “This is because in science and truth, the data is king. If your paper and data have no relationship then the paper and the publisher of the paper can only be suspected as having some sort of agenda”. WHAT?????????????????????

            YOUR agenda is clear, but your argument is not. Perhaps it’s because you express yourself so poorly? What does it mean to say “paper and data have no relationship” with respect to Cook’s work?

            You say, “By the way, I always look at the data when I read an academic paper. This is why I believe AGW is a spoof because I see so often that the science in this subject does not match the empirical data”. That’s funny (as well as quite sad)—-thanks for the laugh.

          • rogerthesurf Says:

            Dumbboldguy,

            I know its hard to argue against empirical data, its a problem that even the United Nations have.

            I think I have explained all I can about Cook’s data and how it does not appear to bear much resemblance to his paper.

            I gave you an invitation to explain to me how Cook’s data and his conclusions match, but you are obviously patently unable, and so am I – although I was able to analyse the data objectively which I did using Cook’s criteria which is included.

            So there we are in agreement, a fact which has been patently obvious from the very start because you have not yet put forward a sound argument but only a lot of bluster. A fact that all the readers here would have to agree on.

            Your bluster does point out one thing though, and that is that you have a religious zeal that the world is coming to an end and you cannot entertain any proof to the contrary.

            This is strange though, because one would think that any proof that contradicts the chicken little syndrome, would be greeted with relief and appreciation.
            In fact, everything points to the world carrying on as usual with the climate warming and cooling like it always has since the last ice age.

            The only thing that is likely to stuff things up is ourselves. Maybe the agenda I mentioned above comes from the United Nations and their attempts to introduce their brand of socialism world wide.

            One fact that I know is in my country, just like Hitler did after 1933, the UN has penetrated our schools.

            Take a look at my blog at http://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations/

            Cheers

            Roger

            http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As I said, “I am done with you on this thread….You may now have the last word—-I am sure you will use it to further embarrass yourself”.

            Thanks for making that a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are one of the biggest morons and Dunning Kruger sufferers ever to visit Crock.

          • rogerthesurf Says:

            Dumbboldguy,

            Here is my last word.

            I is apparent to any sensible person that your bluster and incoherent objections towards my comment have not in the least elevated your denials to anything resembling facts or truth.

            On the other hand I have used facts including the author’s own data to question his written conclusions.

            You have attacked my person and intelligence but never used facts to strengthen your argument.

            I have shown you the data, but you have been unable to understand it’s significance let alone use it in any rational discussion.

            In other words, all you have managed to do is deny facts and have obviously become angry because I have undermined your faith which is that all things to do with the sky falling/doom predictions that the earth is going to over heat etc must be true.

            I also point out that you went to my blog where you are welcome to comment but chose instead to do it here.

            As I deal only in verifiable facts,you have found it impossible to contradict my assertions because you have no facts of your own to support your own assertions.

            I can only hope you have learnt a lesson and may try and equip yourself with factual knowledge in order to support what beliefs you have.

            Cheers

            Roger
            http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

          • dumboldguy Says:

            (I wrote a reply to this comment this morning, but it was eaten by the WordPress Monster and disappeared. I will try again—-since no one is looking at this thread anymore but but roger the attention-seeking smurf, it matters not whether it appears once, twice or twenty times in slightly different forms. He won’t “get it”. Again. This time, or ever).

            “Here is my last word”, says smurfie. Good, that means he will stop posting his smelly piles of ignorant horseshit on Crock and the air will be allowed to clear.. I am going to renege on my own “last comment” promise so that I can help roger embarrass himself once more by pointing out the failings in his comment (and his thinking).

            First, roger says that I went to his blog where I am “welcome to comment but chose instead to do it here” (on Crock). Yes, I did visit his blog briefly to see what he was about, but ran screaming for the exit when I felt my brain starting to melt. With just one brief visit to his blog, I discovered that roger engages in l-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng and mindless exchanges with such well-known non-geniuses as stefanthedenier and scottishskeptic, gives links to articles from American Stinky Thinker by Heartland stooges, praises Monckton and the Oregon Petition, and rants about the evil UN and Agenda 21, to say nothing of his clipping and pasting of denier “science” that he doesn’t understand. I would sooner lie down in the middle of the interstate during rush hour than spend any time visiting his blog.

            Roger’s “last word” comment again reveals to us that roger is an ignorant, attention-seeking, narcissistic whiner that is unable to deal with anyone pointing out his failure to understand Cook’s work (or any other real science). Extracting the phrases from his comment leaves almost nothing else, and proves yet again that he has nothing to say. To wit

            It is apparent to any sensible person…
            bluster and incoherent objections towards…
            anything resembling facts or truth….
            I have used facts including…
            attacked my person and intelligence…
            never used facts to strengthen your argument….
            you have been unable to understand it’s significance…
            let alone use it in any rational discussion….
            I deal only in verifiable facts…
            you have no facts of your own….
            impossible to contradict my assertions…
            all you do is deny facts…

            (and he asks why we attack his “intelligence”? Lord love a duck!))

            Roger says that I have “obviously become angry”? Actually, I’m not angry at all, and am enjoying helping roger to continue to embarrass himself on Crock. It may be a bit cruel of me to take advantage of roger, since he is obviously a mental “cripple”, but HE came HERE on Crock and asked for it.

            “I can only hope you have learnt a lesson” says roger the stupidest smurf in closing. Yes, we have indeed “learnt”. I and all who have read your latest crap have all “learnt” that morons like you DO indeed walk the planet, and that you DO have the intelligence of a brick. Thanks for proving that point yet again.

  7. Hans Says:

    Well said, especially about the howls from the US O&G interests trying to blame the glut in global oil supply on the Saudis! I never understood how if one thing doesn’t change [Saudi oil production] while another does change [US & Canadian crude production increases] it is then the “fault” of the one that didn’t change.

    You may enjoy my take on it from last year. https://hansworldtravels.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/keystone-xl-a-positive-statement-to-changing-global-energy-dynamics/

    Your take on natural gas is off a bit, but that is ok. The hunt for NGL (natural gas liquids) was driving much of the increases in US natural gas. I would also suggest a “decrease” in new natural gas turbines is not indicative of a decreasing reliance on them. To the contrary, those built by design have significant 8760 capacity not being fully utilized, unlike any new coal or nuclear plant.

  8. dumboldguy Says:

    (I wrote a reply to this comment this morning, but it was eaten by the WordPress Monster and disappeared. I will try again—-since no one is looking at this thread anymore but but roger the attention-seeking smurf, it matters not whether it appears once, twice or twenty times in slightly different forms. He won’t “get it”. Again. This time, or ever).

    (PS—-WP refused it again as a direct reply, so I’m adding it as a “new” comment).

    “Here is my last word”, says smurfie. Good, that means he will stop posting his smelly piles of ignorant horseshit on Crock and the air will be allowed to clear.. I am going to renege on my own “last comment” promise so that I can help roger embarrass himself once more by pointing out the failings in his comment (and his thinking).

    First, roger says that I went to his blog where I am “welcome to comment but chose instead to do it here” (on Crock). Yes, I did visit his blog briefly to see what he was about, but ran screaming for the exit when I felt my brain starting to melt. With just one brief visit to his blog, I discovered that roger engages in l-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng and mindless exchanges with such well-known geniuses as stefanthedenier and scottishskeptic, gives links to articles from American Stinky Thinker by Heartland stooges, praises Monckton and the Oregon Petition, and rants about the evil UN and Agenda 21, to say nothing of his clipping and pasting of denier “science” that he doesn’t understand. I would sooner lie down in the middle of the interstate during rush hour than spend any time visiting his blog.

    Roger’s “last word” comment again reveals to us that roger is an ignorant, attention-seeking, narcissistic,whiner that is unable to deal with anyone pointing out his failure to understand Cook’s work (or any other real science). Extracting the phrases from his comment leaves almost nothing else, and proves yet again that he has nothing to say. To wit

    It is apparent to any sensible person…
    bluster and incoherent objections towards…
    anything resembling facts or truth….
    I have used facts including…
    attacked my person and intelligence…
    never used facts to strengthen your argument….
    you have been unable to understand it’s significance…
    let alone use it in any rational discussion….
    I deal only in verifiable facts…
    you have no facts of your own….
    impossible to contradict my assertions…
    all you do is deny facts…

    (and he asks why we attack his “intelligence”? Lord love a duck.)

    Roger says that I have “obviously become angry”? Actually, I’m not angry at all, and am enjoying helping roger to continue to embarrass himself on Crock. It may be cruel of me to take advantage of roger, since he is obviously a mental “cripple”, but HE came HERE on Crock and asked for it.

    “I can only hope you have learnt a lesson” says the smurf in closing. Yes, we have. I and all who have read your latest crap have all “learnt” that morons like you DO indeed walk the planet, and that you DO have the intelligence of a brick. Thanks for proving my point yet again.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: