Canada is enjoying a Booming Oil Industry because they don’t have a President Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2014

Week in Review

The latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that for every person that entered the workforce in December seven people left the workforce (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  In fact, since President Obama assumed the presidency 11,301,000 people have left the labor force.  Despite his policies to create greener and higher-paying jobs to replace the jobs in the coal and oil industries he destroyed.

For America was going green.  Whether we wanted to or not.  Pity, because we’d have a lot more high-paying jobs in the coal and oil industry had it not been for President Obama.  North Dakota is doing really well thanks to natural gas production on private land. Not much he can do to shut that down.  And just to the north things are going very well in the oil business (see Oil patch salaries rise 5 times as fast as rest of Canada posted 1/13/2014 on CBC News).

The average salary of young men working in Canada’s oil patch increased by 21 per cent between 2001 and 2008, more than five times the pace of gain seen by those workers in other parts of the country.

According to a report published by Statistics Canada Monday, men aged 17 to 24 living in the oil-producing provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador were more likely to have a job than their counterparts in other areas, less likely to still be in school, and more likely to earn more.

Kids graduating college with worthless social science and humanity degrees have a boatload of student loan debt.  And little prospect of a job in a high-tech economy.  Had some of these kids had a chance to get a high-paying job in the oil industry instead of getting those worthless degrees they probably wouldn’t be living in their parent’s basement.  With that huge student loan debt hanging over them like the Sword of Damocles.

It’s a pity that the Americans can’t learn a lesson from the smarter Canadians when it comes to energy.  If we had pursued Canadian energy policies instead of Obama policies 11,301,000 people wouldn’t have left the labor force during his presidency.  For a good number of these people would now be in the oil business.  In the oil pipeline business.  In the oil refining business.  In the refined oil distribution system.  And all of the Mom and Pop stores catering to this influx of economic activity all along the way.  That’s what we could have had if we didn’t have President Obama.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

High Gasoline Prices blamed on Wall Street instead of Where it Belongs – Environmentalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Is Wall Street to blame for high gasoline prices?  Or are governmental environmental policies.  Most like to blame Wall Street.  Because they have no understanding of the oil business.  Even though it’s pretty straight forward.  And follows all the rules of supply and demand.  Where most of the current price pressures are coming on the supply side of the equation.  But Wall Street isn’t to blame for that.  We are.  For our collective attacks on the oil industry.  And our acquiescence of the environmental movement (see If the U.S. is now an oil exporter, why $4 gas? by Leah McGrath Goodman posted 4/11/2012 CNNMoney).

The U.S. is now selling more petroleum products than it is buying for the first time in more than six decades. Yet Americans are paying around $4 or more for a gallon of gas, even as demand slumps to historic lows. What gives..?

Americans have been told for years that if only we drilled more oil, we would see a drop in gasoline prices. (Speaking to voters last month, Newt Gingrich made the curious assurance that more oil drilling could drive down gasoline prices to $2.50 a gallon, prompting the White House to accuse him of “lying.”)

But more drilling is happening now, and prices are still going up. That’s because Wall Street has changed the formula for pricing gasoline.

Until this time last year, gas prices hinged on the price of U.S. crude oil, set daily in a small town in Cushing, Oklahoma – the largest oil-storage hub in the country. Today, gasoline prices instead track the price of a type of oil found in the North Sea called Brent crude. And Brent crude, it so happens, trades at a premium to U.S. oil by around $20 a barrel.

So, even as we drill for more oil in the U.S., the price benchmark has dodged the markdown bullet by taking cues from the more expensive oil. As always, we must compete with the rest of the world for petroleum – including our own…

To put it more literally, if a Wall Street trader or a major oil company can get a higher price for oil from an overseas buyer, rather than an American one, the overseas buyer wins. Just because an oil company drills inside U.S. borders doesn’t mean it has to sell to a U.S. buyer. There is patriotism and then there is profit motive. This is why Americans should carefully consider the sacrifice of wildlife preservation areas before designating them for oil drilling. The harsh reality is that we may never see a drop of oil that comes from some of our most precious lands.

It’s not Wall Street.  It’s the crude oil.  The refineries.  And the fact some refineries can only refine the Brent sweet crude oil.

The stuff we import, Brent sweet crude, is a higher quality crude.  It’s cleaner.  And easier to refine.  But it’s more expensive.  Which is a problem for the refineries on the east coast.  And on the Gulf Coast.  Because that’s the crude they can refine.  Because their crude costs are higher their refined gasoline costs are higher.  Therefore, these refineries lose money when selling at the prevailing market price.  So they export their gasoline where they can sell it at a higher price that covers their costs.  Or they shut down refineries.  Which they have done.  Shutting done some 5% of refinery capacity within the last 6 months.  Bringing total online capacity to about 60%.

The stuff we get from Canada, North Dakota and the Gulf of Mexico is West Texas Intermediate.  Which is a heavier, dirtier crude oil.  The refineries that can refine this oil are located in Oklahoma, Kansas and outside Chicago.  And because the gasoline they sell starts with a crude oil priced about $20 less a barrel than their east and Gulf Coast rivals they can sell at prevailing market prices and make a profit that recovers all of their costs.  Which is why these refineries are operating at about 95% of capacity.  Which explains why gasoline is cheaper in Midwest than on the coasts.  Well that, and California’s own emission standards that require an even more costly blend of gasoline than your typical summer blend (to reduce the polluting affects of gasoline at higher temperatures).

(You can read more about refining costs in a February Bloomberg article.  And more about gasoline blends in an Energy Policy Research Foundation article.)

So, no, it’s not Wall Street causing the high gas prices.  It’s environmental policy.  Which requires costly blends of gasoline to reduce emissions.  And makes any expansion of the refinery infrastructure cost prohibitive.  Environmental impact studies alone can take years to complete.  And cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  So the aging infrastructure strains at the seams.  Whereas if those policies weren’t so cost prohibitive we could build new refineries along the east and Gulf Coast to replace those underutilized and shuttered facilities.  And flood them with domestically produced West Texas Intermediate.  Which would make gas prices fall.  At least it would lower the east and Gulf Coast prices to that enjoyed in the Midwest.  But not in California.  Who will forever have the highest gasoline prices thanks to their emission standards

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BP agrees to $7.8 Billion Deal for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Spill

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 4th, 2012

Week in Review

It was the end of the world.  The apocalypse.  Brought on by Big Oil.  And our addiction to that silky rich and seductive crude oil.  A new Black Death.  Only blacker.  And stickier. 

We had finally done it to ourselves.  We ruined our pristine Gulf coast.  And the fragile ecosystem in the water.  And on the land.  But there is one small consolation.  BP is paying billions in a settlement.  Lucky for us that they were so profitable to be able to pay for both the regulatory and compliance costs of their industry.  And these big lawsuits.  So we win.  Until we pump gas, that is.  Where they will no doubt pass on the cost of this very large settlement (see ‘Deal reached’ over BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill posted 3/3/2012 on the BBC News US and Canada).

BP says it has reached a $7.8bn (£4.9bn) deal with the largest group of plaintiffs suing the company over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig spill.

It will benefit some 100,000 fishermen, local residents and clean-up workers whose livelihoods or health suffered…

The rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, killing 11 workers and leaking four million barrels of oil.

BP says it expects the money to come from a $20bn (£12.6bn) compensation fund it had previously set aside.

“From the beginning, BP stepped up to meet our obligations to the communities in the Gulf Coast region, and we’ve worked hard to deliver on that commitment for nearly two years,” BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley said…

BP has so far paid out $7.5bn in clean-up costs and compensation.

US President Barack Obama called the spill “the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced”.

But was it the worst environmental disaster we ever faced?  If most evidence of that disaster can disappear in about a year’s time, perhaps.  But you’d think if it was the worst disaster of all time some of it would stick around a bit longer than that.  But it didn’t.  Which kind of lowers the bar for ‘worst of all time’ disasters, doesn’t it?  Here’s a follow-up published last April.  And it turns out that Deepwater Horizon was less worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster (see BP oil spill: Dramatic recovery of Gulf of Mexico one year on by Philip Sherwell posted 4/10/2011 on The Telegraph).

The Sunday Telegraph accompanied an assessment team scouring low-lying fingers of mud and marsh grasses along a 20 mile stretch of bayou where the river pours into the sea, the nearest point on land to the disaster site.

The phragamites reeds surveyed by the team leader Ivor van Heerden and scientists from the parish, state and federal governments took a direct hit last year.

But last week they found not even residual traces as the captain negotiated through the marshes on a flatbed airboat designed for swamps.

New shoots were bursting out of the reeds, wading birds were nesting, molluscs clung to the stems and the air was thick with greenflies.

And further along the Gulf coast, the white sand beaches of the panhandle that were soiled by tar balls last summer look back to their pristine best, packed in recent weeks by college students enjoying the raucous annual institution of spring break.
“The spill was a disaster, but it was not the catastrophe that many people were portraying,” said Mr van Heerden, a marine scientist who once headed the Louisiana coastal restoration programme for the state’s fragile eco-system of wetlands.

It was his intervention last July that first challenged the assumed wisdom in America that the spill was an apocalyptic environmental catastrophe.

“A lot of people, and that includes politicians and journalists, did not want to hear the message that it was really not that bad,” he said…

Swaths of the Gulf were closed to fishing and over the next six months, nearly 7,000 dead animals were collected from the area – mostly birds but also 700 sea turtles and 100 dolphins – although in many cases the cause of death has not been determined.

But volume can be a misleading measure of a spill’s impact. In 1989 the Exxon Valdez tanker lost just five per cent of the oil that escaped into Gulf last year, but damage to the Alaskan coastline, wildlife and environment was much more devastating.

“This was no Exxon Valdez, not even close,” said Ed Owens, a British marine geologist and oil spill veteran who developed the industry standard for clean-up and monitoring after he worked on the chaotic response to that disaster…

Although the longer-term damage inflicted on the wildlife, marshes and waters of the Gulf is still being assessed, the fishing grounds and oyster beds are open again.

But traditional fishing communities on the slivers of land that poke into the sea south of New Orleans are still reeling from the impact, economically and mentally.

At a roadside seafood stand that his mother opened 32 years ago, Sean Maise has discounted the juicy four-inch long jumbo shrimps in his iceboxes to $3.50 a pound in an effort to woo custom. “It’s bad, real bad,” he lamented…

“We have probably the most rigorous testing in the world here and there has not been a single case of contaminated seafood found since the spill,” he said. “Nobody’s got sick from eating Louisiana seafood, but still people are nervous.”

This doesn’t sound like the worst disaster of all time.  Unless you want to include the devastation of the oil industry, then, yes, it ranks pretty high on the ‘worse’ scale.  But if you’re talking about spring break beaches and delectable seafood, then no.  Even though the people are scared to eat it despite the testing proving that it’s perfectly safe to eat.  Within a year things got back to pretty much normal.  Which kind of makes a mockery of the label ‘worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced.’  And the economic destruction of the Gulf oil industry.

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion was s disaster.  It killed eleven oil workers.  And then destroyed the livelihood of all their coworkers.  And reduced the amount of US crude oil in the domestic pipeline.  Raising the price at the pump.  This is the disaster.  The beaches and water are fine.  Just ask the college students enjoying spring break on the beaches.  In the water.  And eating the seafood.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #86: “Smug, all-knowing condescension camouflages a vacuous philosophical basis.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2011

Ronald Reagan had a B.A. in Economics, Served in the Army, was President of SAG and Served Two Terms as California Governor

The Left hated Ronald Reagan.  They belittled him.  Made snarky comments like ‘he’s just an actor’.  That he wasn’t smart enough to be president.  And not qualified.  For all he could do was give a good speech.  Because he was just an actor.

Yes, he was an actor.  But he did go to college.  Had a B.A. in economics and sociology.   Enlisted in the Army and served in the cavalry.  Earned a commission in the Reserve Officer Corps just before World War II.  Served stateside during World War II making training films for the army.  Severely nearsighted, the Army classified him for limited service only.  Which meant he couldn’t serve overseas.  He served 8 years as president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG).  During the height of the Red Scare.  Which cemented his anti-communist credentials.  (Yes, there were communists in Hollywood.  As well as in the FDR administration.)  Hosted General Electric Theater for 8 years.  He visited General Electric R&D facilities.  About 135.  Saw job creation up close during his tenure with GE.  Helping to hone his economic views.  He served two terms as California governor.  During the peak of the Vietnam anti-war protests.  When he gave his concession speak at the 1976 Republican Convention, delegates mumbled that they had nominated the wrong man (Gerald Ford).  At the age of 69, Reagan became president.  Despite snarky comments like ‘he’s too old to be president’.

So Reagan had the education.  And a long list of experience on his resume.  Experience that took him through some of the most defining moments of American history.  And spent 8 years as governor of the most populous state.  Eight years of solid executive experience.  So he was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Reagan on American college campuses.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But didn’t have an original thought in their heads.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said Ronald Reagan was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

George W. Bush had an M.B.A. from Harvard, served in the Texas ANG, ran businesses and served two terms as Texas Governor

But compared to George W. Bush, they held Ronald Reagan in great esteem.  For the Left just flat out called Bush an idiot.  And simply too stupid to be president.

For being stupid Bush was pretty well educated.  He had an B.A. in history from Yale.  A good thing for presidents to know.  History.  And he earned an M.B.A. from Harvard.  The only president to have one.  He served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam.  He then worked in the oil industry.  Started up some oil exploration companies.  Bush Exploration, for one.   This merged with Spectrum 7.  Where he served as chairman.  The oil glut of the Eighties hit that company hard.  It later merged with Harken Energy.   Where he served on the board.  He helped Dad run for president.  Bought a piece of the Texas Rangers after that.  Spent five years there as the managing general partner.  Built the value of the team so well that when he sold his chunk he got uber rich.  Then he served about one and a half terms as Texas governor.

This is the man the Left said was too stupid to be president.  This man who had an M.B.A. from Harvard.  One of the most pretentious Ivy League schools.  A man who worked in the energy industry.  And understood it.  Who knew how to run a business.  And did.  Even ran a Major League baseball team.  And had some 6 years of solid executive experience as the governor of the second most populous state.  So he, too, was every bit qualified for office.  The people who attacked him just didn’t like his ideology.  And the fact that he was very good in elected office.  And in the business world.  So they used smug, all-knowing condescension to belittle him.  And it worked well.  For they did not like Bush on American college campuses either.  Where kids parroted what they heard in the media.  And on their favorite shows.  But they didn’t have an original thought in their heads.  Some things just never change.

Incidentally, Barack Obama got a B.S. in political science from Columbia.  And a law degree from Harvard.  He served 3 terms as Illinois state senator.  And 2/3 of a term as U.S. senator.  He had no military experience.  No executive experience.  And his only other experience was confined to academe.  Or law.  Yet those who said George W. Bush was not qualified to be president had no problem with Barack Obama.  Go figure.

They make their Snarky Little Comments about the Greed of Corporations while Greedily Demanding more Government Benefits

And speaking of these college geniuses, you can hear a lot of them doing what they do best.  Whining.  They’re protesting up on Wall Street.  Cause they hate capitalism.  Because their tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt hasn’t given them a high paying job.  And because they hate capitalism you know they don’t have a business degree.  Or anything that can be used in the business world.  Further, if they don’t want to be a toady to corporate America, they probably don’t have a degree that would help them gain employment with a corporation.  Like a chemistry degree.  An engineering degree.  Or a physics degree.  No.  These would have been too corporate.  And possibly too harmful to the environment.  Not to mention hard.

These protestors are living the protest life of the Sixties.  Complete with free love.  And drugs.  Which, incidentally, is why they went to college.  Not to sit in some boring-ass lectures and take exams with math on them.  And that’s why they’re so angry.  Because during difficult economic times corporations don’t have the money to waste on wasteful degrees like women’s studies.  Art.  Poetry.  French.  Anthropology.  Or some other liberal art or social science.  No.  The only high paying job opportunities for these are in academe.  Or in government.  When they are flush with taxpayer cash.  Thanks to corporations providing real jobs for taxpayers.  But when there are no real jobs, there are no tax dollars to pay for these phony baloney jobs.

So they make their snarky little comments about the greed of corporations.  About the greed of the bankers.  About the greed of Republicans.  All the while they are greedily demanding more government benefits.  Paid for by the very people they are protesting against.  While enjoying the very things these greedy corporations have given them.  They are using wireless technology to live-tweet their latest list of whines.  All technology created by the very corporations they hate.  Produced under the system they want to purge from America.  Capitalism.

If it wasn’t for Capitalism they’d be Working in a Field Somewhere for Subsistence Right Now

Look at Apple.  And Steve Jobs.  Look at what he created.  And ask yourself this.  Why Steve Jobs and not someone in Cuba?  Someone in North Korea?  Someone in the former Soviet Union?  These are three hardcore socialist regimes these protestors admire.  Who have egalitarian systems of government.  Where there is fair-shared misery.  No one lives better than anyone else.  Except those within the party apparatchik.  Which these protestors naturally assume they would be part of.  Once America became fair.  And they stripped the rich of all their wealth.  For the benefit of mankind.  And by mankind I mean these protestors.

Cuba even has a national health care system that is so impressive that Michael Moore made a movie about it.  While condemning the inferior American system.  Cuba is great.  They care about their people there.  So much so that they don’t let them leave.  For fear of the substandard love they’ll get in another nation.  Still some of these fools try to escape their utopia.  By crossing shark-infested water in some of the most unseaworthy boats.  To get to Florida.  In the USA.  To the country that the Wall Street protestors say is worse than Cuba.  If only they had iPhones in Cuba they could get their live-tweet feed from Wall Street so they would know that things are better there.  So they can stay there.  In their utopia.

Of course, it’s not better there.  And Steve Jobs wasn’t a Cuban.  He wasn’t a North Korean.  He wasn’t a Soviet.  He was an American.  An entrepreneur.  And a capitalist.  Who made Apple a rich corporation by giving us things we can’t live without.  Things we never asked for.  Things we didn’t even know about.  Until after he created them.  And he told us how cool they were.

They can make snarky, all-knowing, condescending remarks all day long about corporate greed and the evil of capitalism.  But if it wasn’t for capitalism they’d be working in a field somewhere for subsistence right now.  And the fact that they don’t know this shows how empty headed and brainwashed they are.  And what a piss-poor job our public schools and colleges are doing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Deepwater Horizon Accident Destroyed the American Oil Industry, but not the Gulf of Mexico

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2011

Still no American Offshore Oil Production in the Gulf of Mexico

This is the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.  The beginning of the world’s greatest environmental catastrophe.  And the ‘day the music died’ for American oil exploration. 

But was it really that bad?  Sure, it was.  There was loss of life.  Eleven men died on that platform.  Brave men working the hard and lonely life of offshore oil production.  Their families no doubt suffering the greatest loss from this catastrophe.  So, in their honor, and everyone working the oil fields, let’s take a glimpse into that life.  And see what it was like in the beginning.  When we first went offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  In the Jimmy Stewart movie Thunder Bay.   

That was then.  That movie had a happy ending.  The shrimpers, fishermen and oil men all lived happily ever after.  Together.  Today, the government itself is after the oil men.  And I doubt even a great American like Jimmy Stewart could stop what’s happening.

The Ecosystem doing just Fine in the Gulf of Mexico

They predicted the end of the world for the Gulf waters.  The oil spewing from Deepwater Horizon was going to kill everything in that ecosystem.  So they predicted.  But the dire predictions of doom and gloom, as usual, have proven more hysteria than fact (see BP Oil Spill: How Bad Is Damage to Gulf One Year Later? by Bryan Walsh, Time, posted 4/19/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Yet nearly a year after the spill began, it seems clear that the worst-case scenario never came true. It’s not that the oil spill had no lasting effects – far from it – but the ecological doomsday many predicted clearly hasn’t taken place. There is recovery where once there was only fear. ” A lot of questions remain, but where we are now is ahead of where people thought we’d be,” Safina says. “Most people expected it would be much worse.”

Good news indeed.  And there’s more.

Yet the damage does seem so far to have been less than feared. Take the oil itself: scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated last August that much of the oil had remained in the Gulf, where it had dispersed or dissolved. Many environmentalists attacked the report for underplaying the threat of large underwater oil plumes still active in the Gulf, yet later independent scientific studies indeed found that oil had largely disappeared from the water. Turns out we can thank bacteria. Scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; University of California, Santa Barbara; and Texas A&M University traveled to the site of the blown well and found that microbes had digested much of the oil and methane that remained in the water. By autumn, the levels were back to normal. “It’s very surprising it happened so fast,” John Kessler, an oceanographer with Texas A&M, told me earlier this year. “It looks like natural systems can handle an event like this somewhat on their own.”

Is Mother Nature mocking us?  Is she taunting, “Is that the best you can do?”  For it would appear she is.  Here we all were, wrought with worry about oil in the water.  Both of which Mother Nature created.  During our time on this planet.  And long before man began adapting nature for our own needs.  And now, despite all the doom and gloom, the water appears just fine.  As is the stuff that lives in it.

The Gulf’s valuable fisheries also seem to have escaped the worst damage. John W. Tunnell Jr., the associate director of the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M, estimated in a report that the region’s shrimp fisheries would rebound to normal within two years, while blue-crab populations would be back to normal this year and commercial fish species such as red snapper and grouper largely escaped any negative impact. (Oyster beds, hit hard by the oil, might take up to a decade to recover, however.) It’s possible that the lengthy moratorium on fishing in much of the Gulf during the worst days of the spill – when up to 84,000 sq. mi. (217,600 sq km) were off limits – may have even given some fish species a much needed break from exploitation, allowing them to recover in population.

You know, that’s not bad.  For America’s worst environmental catastrophe.  And the shrimpers and fishermen are going to escape unscathed, too.  A year or two of loss revenue?  The slush fund President Obama shook down BP for will more than cover two years of lost revenue.  And the shrimpers, fishermen and oil men may very well all live happily ever after.  Just like they did in Thunder Bay.

The Environmentalists have Never been Right

You know, this is not surprising.  Because environmentalists are a bunch of fear mongers who haven’t a clue of what they’re talking about.  They’re not scientists.  They’re activists.  Even their ‘scientists’ are activists.  For no matter how wrong they are with their catastrophic forecasts, they just keep shoveling their doom and gloom.   But we should believe them this time.  Because this time, their models are better.  And this time, their ‘science’ is better.  Sure, they may have been a little off before.  But this time they got it right.  This time it’s for real.

So when it comes to forecasting, let’s take a look at some of these oldies but goodies of yesteryear (see Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts by Maxim Lott posted 12/30/2010 on FOX NEWS).

1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

6. “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.

7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

In case you’re wondering, they were wrong on all of these predictions.  And sea life?  Even America’s worst oil catastrophe couldn’t kill it off.  You’d think the people making these predictions would be a little embarrassed today.  Not so.  FOX asked them.  They’ll admit that they weren’t 100% correct.  But they say they were still pretty damn close.  And their work is still relevant.

Particularly fascinating about this wild-ass guessing that they call science is this statement by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb” and president of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology about the trend of global temperatures (see Item 6 above).

“Present trends didn’t continue,” Ehrlich said of Watt’s prediction. “There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the ’60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the ’70s and ’80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force.”

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

So the scientific consensus that chose cooling over warming was wrong.  They should have been warning us about the end of the world due to global warming, not global cooling.  There, I’m glad we cleared that up.  For awhile there, in the Seventies, we were living in fear of the wrong fear.  Boy, is my face red.  From embarrassment.  Not cooling.  Or warming.

The lesson learned?  Don’t take any investment advice from an environmental scientist.  Because their track record proves that they’re not very smart.  And that they’re pretty bad guessers, too.

Global Cooling Elbowing its way past Global Warming in Chicago

Or maybe the dumb environmentalist scientists were right after all (see Temperatures Lowest For Time Of Year Since 1940s posted 4/20/2011 on CBS Chicago).

Not only has Chicago dealt with chilly rain, hail and even snow this week, but temperatures Tuesday were at their lowest for this late spring date since the 1940s…

In the early evening hours, just walking a few blocks along the streets of Chicago felt like going out to sea in an open boat during a rainstorm in northern Canada. Anyone walking against the wind was blasted continuously in the face with cold droplets of rain, and given the strength of the winds, an umbrella was as good as useless.

Score one for the dumb guys in the Seventies.  They were right.  It’s getting cooler.  The glaciers must be on the move in northern Canada, pushing that arctic weather ahead of them.  Gee, I wonder what will happen when this new ice age slams into the global warming front.  I can’t say for sure but I’ll bet it’ll be a pretty windy day.  Probably best not to schedule any golf when that happens.  I don’t play well on windy days.

Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie

The good news is that the Gulf of Mexico is fine.  The bad news is that the Obama administration has killed the American oil industry for no good reason.  All for the insanity that is global warming.  Or Cooling.  Or Change.  Whatever we’re calling the impending climate disaster heading our way these days.  We’ve acted and made horrible energy policy decisions based on a bunch of ramblings from these pseudo scientists.  And it is killing our economy.  For as Jimmy Stewart said in Thunder Bay, “Without oil this country of ours would stop.  And it’d start to die.”

So we’ve stopped drilling.  But China hasn’t.  Brazil hasn’t.  In fact, we’ve invested in the Brazilian oil industry.  While China works with Cuba to drill for oil in our backyard.  The Gulf of Mexico.  So their economies will grow.  While ours continues to limp along in the recession that just never ends.  As gasoline shoots past $4/gallon once again.  This energy shortage will drive inflation.  Making the basics of life more expensive.  Leaving us with less disposable cash to enjoy life.  Lowering our standard of living.  This in the world’s largest economy.  Well, largest for now.

Bye, bye, Miss American Pie.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,