Spill here, spill now

[Wild Cobra]

That's one problem with the conservative mindset. They use every opportunity to create ad hominem and strawmen arguments to make themselves feel superior to "lib s".

It boggles my mind at how much you have to rely on logically unsound arguments to make the cases you do. You are smart, but seemingly unable to objectively analyze anything.

Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them. Funny how you continue to use such ad hominem attack techniques.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them. Funny how you continue to use such ad hominem attack techniques.

It is not ad hominem to use someones tendency towards illogical arguments to determine how much scrutiny or weight to give to their conclusions.

Ad hominem would be if I outright claimed you were wrong about any given point for the sole reason that you generally are incapable of examining information objectively and honestly.

Your inability to be intellectually honest and apply good critical thinking skills is irrelevant to whether or not you are truthful in any given statement.

The truthfulness of any given statement is independent of the speaker, and must be judged at its face.

One can generally use overall reliability in assigning weight to claims and assertions, and decide that things you say probably deserve a bit more scrutiny, simply because of your marked biases, especially when it comes to analysis of data.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the definitions don't apply to me as you use them.

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.

You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.

Those are direct cir stantial ad hominem fallacies. You repeat this in many guises on many topics, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

[DarrinS]

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.

There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he suc bed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !

I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over now and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil

[Wild Cobra]

You have directly said that climate scientists are wrong in their conclusions because they have the motive to lie about climate data in order to get more goverment grants to study climate.

You have stated that peer review of climate science papers is also suspect for the same reasons.

Those are direct cir stantial ad hominem fallacies. You repeat this in many guises on many topics, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

So I am guilty of such things because I cannot properly communicate my understanding of such things to you.

OK. No problem. Believe as you wish.

[RandomGuy]

So I am guilty of such things because I cannot properly communicate my understanding of such things to you.

OK. No problem. Believe as you wish.

No, you pretty accurately communicated the thoughts in your head.

Those particular ideas were pretty fair re-statements of things you have said here repeatedly.

I will ask you directly then, since you seem not to believe me and think it is all in my head.

Does the statement:

Climate scientists are wrong about man-made climate change because they only say that stuff for the purpose of scaring people/governments into giving them government grants to study climate.

Accurately reflect what you have stated previously?

Yes or no. Either I re-stated your position or not.

If not, then what exactly did you mean or want to say?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=15719298

It seems unlikely that the errors, misprisions and sloppiness in a number of different types of climate science might all favour such a minimised effect. That said, the doubters tend to assume that climate scientists are not acting in good faith, and so are happy to believe exactly that. Climategate and the IPCC’s problems have reinforced this position.

Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5ºC in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.

[DarrinS]

^IPCC's models are already wrong. But you can keep siting them as a source if you want.

[boutons_deux]

Here They Go, Corps hiding behind lawyer s and weaseling out of their responsbility, just like Exxon, Chervron-Texaco, and all the other heavily taxpayer subsidized energy cos.


THURSDAY 13 MAY 2010

Share
Transocean, Doomed Rig's Owner, Seeks to Limit Its Liability

Thursday 13 May 2010

by: Scott Hiaasen | Miami Herald

Transocean, Ltd., the Switzerland-based offshore contractor that owned the Deepwater Horizon floating drilling rig, has asked a federal court in Houston to limit its liability from the oil spill to less than $27 million.

Invoking a little-known maritime law passed in 1851, the company said it should not have to pay any more than the salvage value of the charred oil rig and its freight, all of which sank in 5,000 feet of water after the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers. Before the accident, the Deepwater Horizon was valued at more than $500 million.

In a statement, Transocean said the court pe ion was filed at the request of its insurance companies, and the pe ion will allow the company to consolidate all outstanding lawsuits before a single federal judge in Houston. The company said it now faces more than 100 lawsuits over the spill in several states.

Lawyers for those injured in the blast said the pe ion could also prevent any claims filed more than six months after the accident.

"It's very unfair," said Matthew Shaffer, a Houston attorney who represents a handful of Transocean employees injured in the blast. "It's a slap in the face to anyone who has been injured because of their negligence."

Transocean's filing comes as the Obama administration and Congress seek to retroactively raise liability limits that would cap the cost BP, the runaway well's owner, would have to pay. The current limit is $75 million. Some members of Congress have proposed raising that to $10 billion.

Shaffer said Transocean must prove it did nothing wrong to cause the accident in order to successfully limit its damages.

"I think it's hard to believe they didn't have any knowledge of what was going on on their own rig," Shaffer said.

[RandomGuy]

Oopsies. Did we say 5,000 barrels per day, we really meant 70,000 barrels per day

Steven Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, analyzed videotape of the seafloor gusher using a technique called particle image velocimetry.

Contract workers load oil booms onto a boat to protect marshlands from the massive oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 2010 in Hopedale, Louisiana. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig continues to leak what may be an unprecedented amount of oil and gas into U.S. waters.
A computer program simply tracks particles and calculates how fast they are moving. Wereley put the BP video of the gusher into his computer. He made a few simple calculations and came up with an astonishing value for the rate of the oil spill: 70,000 barrels a day — much higher than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.

The method is accurate to a degree of plus or minus 20 percent.

Given that uncertainty, the amount of material spewing from the pipe could range from 56,000 barrels to 84,000 barrels a day. It is important to note that it's not all oil. The short video BP released starts out with a shot of methane, but at the end it seems to be mostly oil.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...809525&ps=cprs

[Wild Cobra]

No, you pretty accurately communicated the thoughts in your head.

Those particular ideas were pretty fair re-statements of things you have said here repeatedly.

I will ask you directly then, since you seem not to believe me and think it is all in my head.

Does the statement:

Climate scientists are wrong about man-made climate change because they only say that stuff for the purpose of scaring people/governments into giving them government grants to study climate.

Accurately reflect what you have stated previously?

Yes or no. Either I re-stated your position or not.

If not, then what exactly did you mean or want to say?

As a yes or no, I have to say NO. It is only partially correct. I don't know why all believe who believe an AGW believe as they do. I will say with certainty that some believe it, and some are in for profit, and some are in for power. I won't attempt to quantify such percentages however.

[RandomGuy]

As a yes or no, I have to say NO. It is only partially correct. I don't know why all believe who believe an AGW believe as they do. I will say with certainty that some believe it, and some are in for profit, and some are in for power. I won't attempt to quantify such percentages however.

So at least "some" climate scientists believe there is enough science and enough data to support the theory.

Some are in it purely for profit.

And some are in it for power.

The percentages would make quite a big difference, wouldn't they?

If 98% thought there was enough science and enough data, 1% were in it for profit, and 1% were in it for "power", that would make a difference wouldn't it?

That would make an awful lot of smart people with PhDs doing a lot of science, gathering a lot of data, studying it full time for decades, and improving the theory and its predicative accuracy.

Against which you have skeptics who don't have much, if at all, in the way of peer reviewed literature, who I personally have seen say some pretty shockingly illogical and downright paranoid things (both here and elsewhere).

I had one guy tell me that the entire reason the US is pushing for reductions in greenhouse gases is so we can sell China and Iran uranium, then tried to support that with news articles about the Bureau of Land Managment closing land to new uranium mines, and a blurb from an Obama state of the union where he calls for a push for "clean" energy.

[boutons_deux]

Feds severely neglected inspections of offshore drilling rigs

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0516/ap-...drilling-rigs/

Like for the finance sector, "just trust us" self-policing always works.

[MannyIsGod]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. ?

[boutons_deux]

"What. The. ?"

Americans are pretty stupid, just where the politicians, corps, oligarchy, capitalists want them to. Fat, dumb, ignorant, decrepit physically and mentally, greedy, materialistic, mindless consumers, malleable, and above all distracted by falsities of TV and teabagger-type smokescreens hiding the real criminals.

[RandomGuy]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. ?

Heard that.

I doubt the pictures of the eventual ecological damage will sustain that trend though.

We just don't have the experience in such deep waters yet to really know how to handle this stuff.

There is data saying that the spill is an order of magnatude larger and that they are finding massive plumes of oil as far down as 1300 meters.

Given that they are estimating the spillage based just one what hits the surface, that has some pretty shocking implications.

Considering they haven't really come anywhere close to stauching the flow yet, I would be willing to bet there are quite a few fishing jobs that will never come back.

There doesn't seem to be any real massive fish kills yet, because I am sure that the fish are trying to get ahead of the oxygen-depleted water. (bacteria that eat oil use up all the oxygen in the water)

[RandomGuy]

Feds severely neglected inspections of offshore drilling rigs

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0516/ap-...drilling-rigs/

Like for the finance sector, "just trust us" self-policing always works.

This is shaping up to be another poster-child of the "short term profits at the expense long term good and sound risk management" argument.

[DarrinS]

There doesn't seem to be any real massive fish kills yet, because I am sure that the fish are trying to get ahead of the oxygen-depleted water. (bacteria that eat oil use up all the oxygen in the water)

And in the process, these bacteria produce ... CO2 (gasp).

[admiralsnackbar]

This is shaping up to be another poster-child of the "short term profits at the expense long term good and sound risk management" argument.

If we can make a generalization based on corporate culture at Enron, BP, and Massey, it's that these execs have a personal love for generating gigantic short-term profits for themselves at any risk. When the inevitable tragedy happens, they will long-since have made enough money to protect themselves from (or never even feel) any prosecution or civil suits, and the next wave of sunsa es assume control and begin the process again.

[admiralsnackbar]

The more I read about this the more upset I become on many fronts including Obama's support for more drilling offshore, the extent this is going to harm the GoM and GoM coastal ecology and American public opinion on the situation.

I could work with some of the disappointments I'd felt from Obama's presidency because I feel it is an overal net gain during a period of time in American politics where progressive politics has been demonized in the eyes of the common American. However, the policy decision made by this administration regarding drilling was a stupid one with marginal real world gains at a (realized) sizeable risk. The amount of oil we gain from offshore operations is only a small percentage of our usage and drilling all over the place for more oil in these places isn't worth it to anyone but stock holders for corporations like BP and places so much at risk. The fact of the matter is that companies don't care if they can drill safely they just care if they can drill at any cost. As long as the bottom line is positive then nothing else matters. I realize that Obama's policy decision had nothing to do with this disaster but it sends the worst kind of message and for what? I knew Obama's stances on executive power going in (and the dissapointments in that area have not been unforseen) but the would in the back of environmentalists who believed in him on this issue is still fresh and was a lot more of a surprise. Silly me, I guess.

The more news I read on this the worse it seems. The latest information is that the oil may become trapped in the loop current as soon as this week which would carry it to the keys and then onto the eastern seaboard. That is simply some of the oil on the surface and does not account for the new reports of subsurface plumes which are gigantic in size.

Also, reading a recent post on 538 just blows my mind. Some recent polling of Americans had a sizeable responding that this disaster made them MORE likely to support offshore drilling.

What. The. ?

I have a feeling his reversal on offshore drilling had more to do with the Russians drilling off Cuba than with energy policy per se, but it's only speculation.

[RandomGuy]

I have a feeling his reversal on offshore drilling had more to do with the Russians drilling off Cuba than with energy policy per se, but it's only speculation.

I think it was a rather easy bargaining chip with Republicans.

There will eventually be enough economic pressure to drill offshore anyways, so why not get the process started.

The thing is that if we hold on to our oil reserves while everybody else sucks theirs up, the longer we wait the more $$$ it is worth.

[boutons_deux]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

[RandomGuy]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

It just makes some skittish. I don't see it being our business who is drilling for oil in Cuba's territorial waters. Unless of course they have a massive underwater oil blowout because of ty safety standards...

[admiralsnackbar]

Russia drilling in Cuban waters is not drilling US oil. WTF?

Just politics/business. It's looked upon as an incursion into our "territory," perhaps the first of many to come. As international waters, there's nothing the we can do about it, but we would certainly rather the oil around our continent belong to our corporations and not Russia's. There's probably some vestigial Cold War logic in there, too.

[RandomGuy]

Oopsies. Did we say 5,000 barrels per day, we really meant 70,000 barrels per day



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...809525&ps=cprs

bump.