Wayback exposes the re-writing of climate history + more on energy

On March 14, 2007  six scientists debated the proposition “Global Warming is not a Crisis.”  In favour, the late Michael Crichton, Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor Philip Stott. Against  were Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and Professor Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

528 people attended at the Asia Society and Museum in New York City and they were polled on the assertion before the debate and after.

“And now the results of our debate. After our debaters did their best to sway you…you went from, 30% for the motion that global warming is not a crisis, from 30% to 46%. [APPLAUSE]

Against the motion, went from 57% to 42%… [SCATTERED APPLAUSE, MOANS] And “undecided” went from 13% to 12%. The hardcore ambivalent are still among us. [LAUGHTER] So, in terms of opinion change, those in favor of the motion, have carried the day, congratulations to the team for the motion.

Gavin Schmidt was never again prepared to go on stage with a qualified climate realist. He reportedly said debates are not worthwhile, regardless of the outcome. 

Following up the debate for a book project, Andy May reported:

As you can probably imagine, I was nearly knocked to the floor when I clicked on the Intelligence Squared tab for the debate results on 28 December 2020… I read the winner, post-debate, was Against the motion, by 89%! Someone with access to the Intelligence Squared web site had radically changed the results from a win for the climate skeptics to a win for the alarmists. You may still be able to see this when you go to the web site. I wrote to them about this error December 28, and have received no answer.

What about the petrol after the EV revolution? Back to the nineteenth century?

Back in the early days of the oil industry (1880s and 1890s), the product that the industry could sell at a profit was kerosene for lighting and heating. Since there was no automobile industry yet, gasoline was a waste product that was dumped into streams. 

Why couldn’t the refiners produce only kerosene? Why did they end up with “worthless” gasoline?  The answer is a barrel of oil produces a variety of products. While there is some “wiggle room” to produce more diesel and less gasoline, etc., it isn’t possible to turn a barrel of oil into only one product.

These days.

So, come the electric vehicle revolution we will be back to putting 47% of the barrel of oil down the drain again. Just don’t tell the EPA!

UK still on the brink of blackouts. Enjoying the festive season? 

While the U.K. has made swift progress on switching from fossil fuels to renewables, this is the downside to cleaning up its energy system. And, like Wednesday, when the wind doesn’t blow, cold weather boosts demand and several nuclear plants are offline the grid operator is left scrambling to avoid blackouts.

Each time a so-called electricity market notice is published, the issue has been resolved within hours by power plants ramping up supply or by a planned reduction in demand from industry. Until this winter, there hadn’t been a market warning for four years.

Swift progress indeed, but what about the direction?

This entry was posted in Electric Power and Energy, Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe's Roundups. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Wayback exposes the re-writing of climate history + more on energy

  1. stackja says:

    Why not close down all coal power now?
    All households solar/wind.
    EV charged from solar/wind.
    Then go back to kerosene lamps.

  2. Daily llama says:

    The transcript of the debate is fun. And the usage as per the drum is 105%. Better tell Trump it’s rigged

  3. Mother Lode says:

    I read the winner, post-debate, was Against the motion, by 89%!

    Notice they did not simply reverse the numbers, or enter something like 55% against, 45% for, and 10% undecided.

    The big number 89%. Overwhelming! A clean sweep. All matters settled!

    The lesson they want people to draw from the debate?

    There is nothing to debate.

  4. tombell says:

    This debate was based more upon presentation and charisma, rather than the actual data. The vast majority of scientific data is at odds with the ‘For’ side, and this is especially true in the past…

    The above is from some luminary on the I Squared site. In short, the result of the debate was irrelevant. I know what the correct result should have been – so there!!

  5. eb says:

    Hang on! A 42 gallon drum?
    I thought that was a 44-gallon drum. I’ve been lied to all these years!
    It’s an outrage I tells ya, an outrage!

  6. Rafe Champion says:

    Where did this 42 gallon drum come from, all the references to drums on net are 44 or 55. This is a handy local site if you like 44 gallon drums.

    In case anyone else is wondering what happened to kero, it is the main ingredient in jet fuel. We used to run our tractor on it until diesel became the thing.

  7. John A says:

    eb #3712875, posted on January 7, 2021 at 11:36 am

    Hang on! A 42 gallon drum?
    I thought that was a 44-gallon drum. I’ve been lied to all these years!
    It’s an outrage I tells ya, an outrage!

    Yes, I saw that silly number too.

    44 Imp. gallons = 200L
    55 US gallons = 208L

    When I was selling oil, Shell and Mobil used 208L as their drum measure. Most others used a straight 200L.

    That 105% is actually based on 44 gallons so it looks like a transfer of the data from some Imp. chart.

  8. Eyrie says:

    Diesel, kero and jet fuel are basically the same thing. The groujd guys who turn the aircraft at our airports and do things like drain the fuel sumps all bought diesel cars. They run fine on Jet A1.

  9. Nob says:

    eb
    #3712875, posted on January 7, 2021 at 11:36 am
    Hang on! A 42 gallon drum?

    42 US gallons = 1 barrel, standard oil measurement for pricing , production etc.

    And for other products, boe = barrel of oil equivalent.

  10. John A says:

    Nob #3713423, posted on January 7, 2021 at 4:07 pm

    eb #3712875, posted on January 7, 2021 at 11:36 am
    Hang on! A 42 gallon drum?

    42 US gallons = 1 barrel, standard oil measurement for pricing , production etc.

    And for other products, boe = barrel of oil equivalent.

    No – a barrel of oil is 119.something litres, not 42 US gallon which is about 160L

  11. RobK says:

    I’ve often wondered how we’d pave the roads without bitumen or concrete.
    I’ve used a product derived from pine wood resin for dust suppression on mine haul roads. That should be eco friendly down the CBD.

  12. Nob says:

    In Kenyan oilfields they make roads from drilled rock cuttings and drilling fluid from nearby wells.

  13. John A says:

    Nob #3713497, posted on January 7, 2021 at 4:40 pm

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)#Oil_barrel

    Thanks, Nob.

    Isn’t it nice to have a standard size for everything?

    Alternatively: “Have a standard – there are so many to choose from!”

  14. Nob says:

    Most countries use mixed units to some degree. You get used to converting and it sharpens the brain. The most metric fundamentalist outside of former Soviet Union that I deal with is Canada.

    Even countries Norway and France, drilling into old wells that were initially done in Imperial units, stick with those units.

    And you get metric lengths with Imperial diameters all the time. 2500 metres of 13-3/8″ casing in 17-1/2″ hole, for example.

Comments are closed.