As OPEC’s efforts to balance the oil market bear fruit, U.S. producers are reaping the benefits – and flooding Europe with a record amount of crude.
Russia paired with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries last year in cutting oil output jointly by 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd), a deal they say has largely rebalanced the market and one that has helped elevate benchmark Brent prices LCOc1 close to four-year highs.
Now, the relatively high prices brought about by that pact, coupled with surging U.S. output, are making it harder to sell Russian, Nigerian and other oil grades in Europe, traders said.
“U.S. oil is on offer everywhere,” said a trader with a Mediterranean refiner, who regularly buys Russian and Caspian Sea crude and has recently started purchasing U.S. oil. “It puts local grades under a lot of pressure.”
U.S. oil output is expected to hit 10.7 million bpd this year, rivaling that of top producers Russia and Saudi Arabia.
In April, U.S. supplies to Europe are set to reach an all-time high of roughly 550,000 bpd (around 2.2 million tonnes), according to the Thomson Reuters Eikon trade flows monitor.
In January-April, U.S. supplies jumped four-fold year-on-year to 6.8 million tonnes, or 68 large Aframax tankers, according to the same data.
Trade sources said U.S. flows to Europe would keep rising, with U.S. barrels increasingly finding homes in foreign refineries, often at the expense of oil from OPEC or Russia.
In 2017, Europe took roughly 7 percent of U.S. crude exports, Reuters data showed, but the proportion has already risen to roughly 12 percent this year.
Top destinations include Britain, Italy and the Netherlands, with traders pointing to large imports by BP, Exxon Mobil and Valero.
(GRAPHIC: U.S. crude oil and condensate supplies to Europe in 2017-2018 by destination – reut.rs/2F9lWRO)
Polish refiners PKN Orlen and Grupa Lotos and Norway’s Statoil are sampling U.S. grades, while other new buyers are likely, David Wech of Vienna-based JBC Energy consultancy said.
“There are a number of customers who still may test U.S. crude oil,” Wech said.
The gains for U.S. suppliers could come as a welcome development for U.S. President Donald Trump, who accused OPEC on Friday of “artificially” boosting oil prices.
Question: why would Putin order Trump to compete with Russia’s oil markets and hurt the Russian economy?
@Deplorable Me: It really doesnt it shoves the saudis out of the market as the Russian government controls its prices not opec. Ours is driven by free market.
@kitt: But a sale to Europe we make is a sale Russia doesn’t.
@Deplorable Me: True but who is the real target? Russia could make more $$ if they plant non-monsanto grains and non GMO organic foods.
I cant find totally glysophate free flour anywhere. Our Farmers could use the competition to provide real food. All I see are test plots monsanto monsters.
It’s our own nation’s limited resource that’s doing the flooding. How smart is that?
@Greg: Pretty smart. It won’t take 53 years to bring Putin to heel.
@Deplorable Me, #6:
Lots of luck with that. Vladimir Putin’s hidden personal wealth is estimated to be around $200 billion.
@Greg: So, you think if the Russian economy is hurting due to lack of oil revenues, Putin is going to write the Kremlin a check to carry them over? Or, are you simply struggling, reaching, trying to find anything to criticize Trump for?
53 years’ worth of KNOWN & available RESERVES, Greg.
We all know how faulty that calculus is compared with what comes online via fracking.
Our fracked oil is the equivalent of a “light, sweet,” crude which means it needs only a small amount of refinement.
This is just the opposite of Russian and ME oil which requires a ton of refining.
That makes for even a better profit margin for the US sellers.
BTW, all this time, money and subsidizing and how much solar/wind energy have we got?
Germany just ended their subsidies for such and the whole thing collapsed there. Check out these graphs!
@Greg: They were using that in the Carter years, damn not another recycled liberal crisis.
You’re entirely missing the point with regard to limited U.S. oil reserves, but it’s a point that the GOP’s base have been long conditioned to miss.
53 years is nothing. We’re talking about the depletion of a critical, non-renewable resource within the lifetime of today’s elementary school children.
@Greg: Wait a minute, Greg!
Are you admitting that oil is the ONLY decent energy resource on earth?
Actually, if you are, you’re right.
But oil is renewable.
Pressure creates oil out of biomass constantly.
And new oil patches are being discovered all the time.
Just look how our own oil reserves jumped up in recent years.
And, who knows? If some woman hasn’t aborted him/her, there may be a big oil-replacing discovery made within the next 50 years.
@Nanny G: No worries we will all be dead from global climate change or Obamacare long before that.
Burning isn’t the only thing petroleum is used. Look down at your keyboard. Is it made out of wood? Where does the asphalt for our roads and highways come from?
And we’ve only got to wait around 300 million years for more. We’ve been burning through a finite supply that was produced from ancient Carboniferous forests as if there’s no end to it. But there will be an end—in around 53 years, at the current rate of consumption.
@Greg: I’ll let you liberals know the next time one of your predictions comes to pass for it will be the first.
@Deplorable Me, #15:
It isn’t a “liberal prediction.” It’s a calculation made by British Petroleum’s geologists. File your complaint with them.
@Deplorable Me: Perfect time to pump out womens studies and basket weaving majors give them a guaranteed job in the government rather than chemists that could develop clean alternatives. The federal government rather than giving cash based on color of graduates should be laying out cash for useful majors graduated. Chemists, engineers ect.
So, no forests have died in the intervening 300 million years, Greg?
Before recorded history, lots of jungles and forests have been destroyed all over the planet.
Fires, floods, landslides, meteor strikes, volcanoes all caused forested/jungle areas to massively die off.
There’s a pipeline to more oil coming all the time.
Plus, last time we visited this subject (over a year ago) we discussed how “peak oil,” is defined.
Peak oil only includes known reserves of economically recoverable oil supply.
In other words, there’s decades, maybe centuries more oil that is around but not economically recoverable at this time.
Maybe a new idea, like fracking, will make it economically recoverable in the near future.
Maybe the price will go up (it is rising) so it is economically recoverable in the future.
Maybe newly discovered oil will be economically recoverable in the future.
@Nanny G, #18:
Geological processes aren’t a steadily rolling conveyor belt. Conditions during the Carboniferous Period, when the Earth’s land masses were covered for millions of years on end by vast swamp forests, simply haven’t recurred. They were the makings of existing coal and petroleum deposits. It took hundreds of millions of years of those unique conditions to produce what humankind will exhaust in a few hundred.
@Deplorable Me: Yes, the Carter administration predicted we would be out of oil already. Greg always looks for the most “unique facts” which are not really facts at all. Couple his “unique facts” with his flawed logic and we get created crisis like global warming caused by humans, rising sea levels, sex changes by trace levels of hormones in drinking water, and a myriad of other predicted crisis that still have not been realized. Remember the global cooling predicted by the same people who are living off of the government handouts of global warming? If you want to use “unique facts” the Russians did a study that oil is created continuously by processes within the earth by the decay of radioactive sources. 53 years is a joke! No one has really started recovering our off shore oils let alone the off shore oil of many other countries due to the inadequate technologies.
So the US should abandon a policy to bring Russia to the table based upon Greg’s “unique facts”? Greg is still showing his aptitude for the bizarre would have made him an acceptable Secretary of State for Hillary!
@Greg: #11
Ah yes, the existential threat of ‘Peak Oil’…the pre-global warming/cooling/changing climate catastrophe rationale for turning the control of our lives over to the ‘we know better than you’ elites. Coupled with a side order of ‘think of the children!’
Apparently now that the bastions of climate disaster are beginning to sow some seeds of rationality, lefty control freaks need to warm up a potential fall-back dystopian scenario requiring immediate, drastic changes to our lifestyles.
Believe it or not, there were doomsayers long before Hubbert took his shot. Just for grins, let’s look at a collection of some of the previous ‘Peak Oil’ predictions and their accuracy…
Yawn…
So far their accuracy seems to be on a par with the Biblical scholars trying to pick a date for the Second Coming – or political pundits informing us of the inevitability of a Hillary landslide.
Hubbert was convinced Peak Oil would be reached in the late ‘60’s – early ‘70’s.
We’ve been supposed to run out of oil ‘Real Soon Now’ since 1909.
Don’t hold your breath…
@Jay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghG7zF5GK8 2 min video.
There is no coherent policy. There’s hardly even a functional State Department. There’s only Donald, tossing out Twitter messages and shifting directions with every change of the wind. Onto that, people attempt to project a policy.
@Jay, #21:
You talk as if all those issues have magically gone away. They haven’t. You’ve only elected a pack of idiots whose popularity and pocket money is based on telling you that they have.
Oil reserves remain finite, despite new discoveries and recovery technology. Eventually the tank runs dry. British Petroleum scientists’ best and most recent calculation gives us about 50 years, at the world’s current rate of consumption. That’s 50 years for humanity to transition to something more sustainable, or to suffer the consequences.
Do you think they’re lying? Or are the people who constantly tell you not to worry about it lying?
@Greg:
Yes, there is. Russia holds Europe under its thumb with supplies of LPG and oil. Their entire economy is based on oil sales. If we become the alternative to Russia for Europe, Russia cannot blackmail Europe for gas supplies (as it has done) and we can threaten their economy with our oil production
That’s a policy, and it’s a good one.
Yeah, they’ve only managed to get NATO to start paying their required share, gotten friendly Arab states to take on more of the burden in the war on terror, got Russia and China to take our concerns with N. Korea seriously and brought N. Korea to the negotiating table. Now, if only they could mis-translate some word on a stupid button they could follow in the footsteps of the disastrous Hillary regime.
Have they or have they not been consistently wrong? We aren’t supposed to have even 53 years of supply left at this point and yet we have more reserves than we ever before believed.
In which case they can lower their prices. They don’t have the added costs of transporting oil and LPG across an ocean to contend with.
If the price war gets bad enough, they might try giving away free beverage glasses with every purchase.
As far as I know, that’s all a load of Trump rhetoric. Our military expenditures seem to be rising.
No, contemporary science has not been consistently wrong. Who is this “they” you’re talking about? Science is not infallible, but the entire technological world is functioning because scientific prediction is most often accurate and reliable. Scientific methodology has a built in self-correcting mechanism.
The global rate of consumption is also rapidly rising, and will continue to do so the 3rd world industrializes and as the population grows.
@Greg: Better than free glasses https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-rape-condoms-picture-will-jagged-teeth-deter-world-cup-sex-assaults-rape-axe-hopes-so/
@Deplorable Me: It is truly amazing that Greg continues to shoot off his mouth when he has no facts. He has no idea what the Russian cost is to ship oil. He has no idea what the break even point for Russian oil is. He has no idea how much of the oil revenues are already obligated. Greg has no idea what is happening in the State Department. He only watches CNN and MSNBC. (The fake news stations!) Greg like most liberals are so overwhelmed with their self importance that they can not even see what is happening around the world. Not only that, the liberals actually believe their own propaganda, and the brainless parrots like Greg, sucks it up as truth. Lemmings!
Do you know why the European demand for U.S. oil has increased? It isn’t entirely because of Donald’s astonishing cleverness. Russia is diverting oil to China.
Europe Becomes Victim of Russia’s Newest Oil Strategy
@Greg: You really do not have a clue do you! You have argued about oil supply and demand for years and you are still ignorant. It doesn’t matter who the Russians sell the oil to. If Trump is increasing the world supply, the Russians get less per barrel. That is the strategy dingbat!
@Greg: #24
You talk as if those issues actually existed in the first place. The left has spent years electing and/or subsidizing a pack of idiots whose popularity, reputations and entire income stream is based on telling you they exist.
Is someone more likely to lie for pocket money or their main source of income?
When it’s allowed to operate. Have you ever considered the possibility that the people who constantly tell you TO worry about it might be the ones lying? Especially when they resort to ‘consensus’ science or ‘settled’ science and ban the ‘heretics’ from being allowed to express their viewpoints?
Which is in direct contradiction to your statement above.
True, as far as the statement goes – but when the supposed scientific experts in a field (these two, most notably) manage to completely miss their dire predictions by a substantial margin on a continuous basis, in fact, having never gotten a single one of them correct, on what basis do you consider them ‘accurate and reliable’?
If you bothered to peruse the list provided, “scientific experts” have been positing the imminent demise of oil reserves for over a century now. On what scientific basis are/were any of those predictions ‘accurate and reliable’?
Finite, yes, but apparently not exactly static.
A new field that could be ‘one of the largest ever’? Gee, that might extend the latest ‘Peak Oil’ quesstimate by a few more years.
And as far as Hubert’s prediction is concerned – exceeding the ‘peak’ value nearly 40 years after it was supposedly passed I would think somewhat undermines the ‘accuracy and reliability’ of his prognostication abilities.
You do realize technologies such as wind and solar (and for that matter batteries for electric cars) have their own ‘finite’ limits, don’t you? There are only so many viable sites and so many minerals that can be mined (yes, Virginia, ‘dirty’ coal is not the only mineral that must be dug out of the ground).
Not to mention there exist environmental hazards from supposedly benign renewable resources.
Consequences? Did someone mention consequences? Oh, snap…
@Jay: I have become so tired of Greg’s posts that lack scholarship and basic facts that I just snap back. This is a very extensive and in-depth post. Good thought and spot on replies.
@Randy: Thanks.
I took night classes for a while at a famously leftist Northwest university that has been in the news off and on the last couple of years.
Had a number of conversations with a number of ‘Greg’s’ in various classes. Got used to carrying copies of charts, graphs and hard data with me. They ‘knew’ I was ‘wrong’, but somehow were never able to provide actual data to back up their positions.
I spent over 35 years in the utility industry, and have been ‘on the inside’ of several proposed generation projects, both renewable and conventional, about 1/2 of which were built and wound up on the grid.
In the view of at least some of my fellow students that seemed to somehow make me less qualified to discuss energy related issues.
Like the old joke goes, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!”
@Jay, #31:
A consensus emerges when people have come to be in general agreement about something. People don’t come to a general agreement because the consensus about something already existed.
And who, exactly, has banned the “heretics” from having their say? In fact, their views have had so much exposure—thanks to having so much dark money behind them—that half the population is now convinced most scientists are part of a vast leftist conspiracy. It’s not just a matter of scientists. Everything the right objects to is apparently part of some vast leftist conspiracy. Conspiracy theory seems to be turning into an underlying component of the right’s world view.
What they’ve mostly missed are deliberate misrepresentations of what climate scientists have said. NASA is probably better than anybody at keeping tabs on what is actually happening. Their accumulating data confirms the long-term trends they’ve been warning us about. So they say. Am I suppose to think they’re lying?
So far as the assertion goes that oil reserves are finite and we could run out in 50 years, or that rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are resulting in progressive planetary warming, I think such dismal conclusions are more in line with common sense. Denial seems to correspond with wishful thinking, and a primary emphasis on short-term thinking and maximizing profits. If I have a built-in bias it stems from that, not from my political agenda. I think of my political agenda as a logical response.
@Jay: Have you seen the latest dribble from Greg. He still thinks that consensus determines science facts and NASA is infallible! He never stops to consider what qualifies NASA to make predictions outside of their mission. It is money that is driving the consensus but that is drying up now. Facts will only be used to change environmental policy in the US.
@Greg:
You don’t understand much, do you? Or is it simply that your hatred for Trump (or dedication to Soros) blinds you to logic?
There comes a point where the oil is selling for less than it costs to bring it up out of the ground. At that point, it must be left in the ground until the supply gets to the point that it is, once again, profitable. That is what OPEC tried to do to us when our newly discovered and accessed reserves threatened their grip on the world. They couldn’t hold out and have given up trying to put our fracking operations out of business.
So, no, Putin is not going to sell his oil at a loss just to compete with the US. He can’t afford it. It’s called economics; look into it.
But that’s not to benefit NATO; that is to repair the damage Obama did to military readiness.
You are right. I agree, science is rarely wrong. However, the manipulated version in which facts are suppressed and the findings are skewed to show a predetermined result the left wants liberals use has been CONSISTENTLY wrong.
Yet Russia and China are not always good friends. That is desperation, not a strategy.
OK, so you gather a group of “scientists” all with a similar mindset. They are congregating because they all share a predetermined conviction about a certain “reality”. Then they form a consensus. How scientifically reliable do you suppose that consensus is?
Good Lord.
University professors scheme to suppress climate skeptics
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/06/01/climate-spin-behind-scenes-emails-show-profs-evading-questions.html
Once again, the global warming alarmists are caught suppressing facts to further their agenda
Why The LA Times Did Not Publish Their “Smoking Gun” Against Exxon
Scientist’s paper rejected and attacked because it does not agree with climate alarmists
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/damning_email_shows_how_climate_advocates_suppress_skeptics.html
Scientist attacked by warming alarmists for his lack of faith obviously cleared
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/09/facts-clear-astrophysicist-soon-of-wrongdoing-while-indicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/
This is how your “consensus” is formed.
Yes. Obama had the power to cut their purse strings.
NASA/NOAA caught lying about temperature data
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/
Wise to prepare for cooling?
More lies to support climate change, sea level rise
More Massive Sea Level Fraud At NASA
More manipulated climate data
NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000
1930’s warmest decade information changed by NOAA/NASA
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
I also have numerous links showing contradictory research results from NASA that, apparently, no one ever hears about; suppression.
NASA study shows CO2 COOLS
http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
But, what about my original question? Why would Putin’s puppet, the guy he has piss-tapes on, do things that threaten the very foundation of the Russian economy? Trump’s not being a very good puppet, is he?
And, it appears Trump’s State Department HAS been pretty busy.
@Jay:
No, he hasn’t. He doesn’t have to. I think he is fully aware those are lies, yet it is ingrained in the liberal ideology so he has to promote it.
@Greg: #34
Science is (or used to be, anyway) about the facts and what can be supported by experimentation and observation – not how many people are ‘on your side’.
Not to mention that the claim of a so-called ‘consensus’ on AGW has been shown to have numerous flaws. Enough to allow for an entire section on the ‘Watts Up With That’ website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/page/2/
You don’t get outside your bubble much, do you? Bill covered multiple instances of that.
When the supporters of a viewpoint start calling for those who disagree with them (or the orthodoxy) to be jailed or otherwise punished for their views, rather than providing factual evidence to support their own view, we’ve moved from rational, traditional empirical science into the Inquisition against Galileo – who by the way was going against the ‘consensus’ of the day.
So…if conspiracy theories are the province of whacko nut-cases, would you care to opine about Hillary’s ‘vast right wing conspiracy’? No? Hmmm.
I used to have a lot of respect for NASA. At least pre-James (Global Cooling is going to kill us – no, wait, now Global Warming is going to kill us) Hansen NASA.
Actually, it appears that it’s not the ‘accumulating’ data that confirms the trend…it’s the MANIPULATED data to try and create the trend.
Are you supposed to think they’re lying? If you’re interested in facts and data, I think that’s the conclusion a rational person would draw. You tell me.
I’m not sure that sounds like an agency that is “probably better than anybody at keeping tabs on what is actually happening”.
If you recall (or if not, the internet is ready and waiting) the scientific ‘experts’ on global warming assured us that:
Really? Just which of those ‘dismal conclusions’ are ‘in line with common sense’?
Is it ‘denial’ to think, in view of those statements that *they* might just be the whacko nut cases?
You go right ahead and rely on your built-in bias and your political agenda and keep pretending it’s a ‘logical response’.
The rest of us (at least the ones not on an IV drip of kool-aid), can listen to Aldous Huxley, who said “Facts do not cease to exist because you ignore them”. You think we’re the ones ignoring the facts. I think the empirical evidence proves otherwise.
@Deplorable Me, #36:
What I understand is that the trans-oceanic shipment and offloading of millions of metric tons of any product adds significantly to its costs. Russia transports oil and natural gas to European and Chinese markets through pipelines. Consequently, the point at which they would be selling at a loss is lower than our own.
Russian oil and gas production reached record highs last year. They’ve recently reduced the volume they’re selling on European markets not because of Trump, but because they’ve redirected a portion of their overall production to the Chinese market. They just opened a new expansion of their trans-Siberian pipeline, constructed for that purpose.
Real Climate Science is a Steve Goddard website. Goddard is actually Tony Heller. His alternate climate science is steeped in conspiracy theory. His degrees are in electrical engineering and geology. He claims NASA fakes its climate data.
Principa Scientifica is the creation of John O’Sullivan.
Both of them.
That oil reserves are finite is obvious. The estimate stated as “known reserves” comes ever closer to representing an actual final amount, because there’s only so much of the Earth left that hasn’t been explored. What it took hundreds of million years to produce is being used over hundreds of years. We do know this: Everything we can reasonably expect to get at can logically be depleted. BP geologists estimate that will happen in about 50 years.
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. It reflects radiant energy bouncing off the Earth’s surface back from the atmosphere toward the Earth’s surface. If you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations, common sense suggests more radiant energy is reflected back instead of escaping into space. The extra trapped heat results in progressive warming.
Wishful thinking ignores all of this, without offering any genuinely convincing rebuttal.
@Greg: You are actually not just ignorant. You are just stupid! You have no idea of the cost of shipping oil over the ocean or the cost of the Russians producing their oil. Yet, you continue to state your ignorant non-facts. Do you understand why water bottled in the Colorado is more expensive in CA than Fiji bottled water? Do you know why? According to your calculations, Fiji water should be more expensive. The answer is that it is more expensive to ship water from the Rocky Mountains to CA than to ship water from 10 times farther. Also the bottling of Colorado water is more expensive than Fiji water. Why is Fiji water bottled in square bottles? They can pack a gallon of water in less space than a gallon of round bottles. Weight does not matter when shipping Fiji water. It ships by ship. Cubic feet is how the shipping cost is derived. Shipping water cost from Colorado is based upon weight. When you sit in your lazy boy and make these ignorant comments with no knowledge, you are more than ignorant. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Stupidity is continuing to make an argument without knowledge as proof. We all know what your are!
Payback for the 1970’s Oil Crisis after those Camel Jockeys/Goat Hearder’s cut off our oil shipments and we still need Alaska Oil Pipeline and Screw those idiots from GREENPEACE lets open up Kestone and Standing Rock and screw the Greens
@Randy, #39:
I know it’s a fact that the cost of shipping two million barrels of North American oil per day to Europe across 4,000 miles of ocean isn’t minor.
I also know it’s a cost Russia doesn’t have, because they run their oil to European markets through a pipeline. A pipe is a much less expensive delivery system than a trans-Atlantic tanker.
We don’t need to know the exact figures to realize this gives them a definite pricing advantage.
A price comparison with the bottled water market makes no sense at all. Filling a barrel with off-the-shelf bottled water could easily cost you a couple thousand dollars. What people are charged for the stuff bears very little relationship to the cost of shipping it. The value is almost entirely in people’s minds, not in its usefulness. The ridiculously inflated retail price of fancy bottled drinking water is pretty much the result of a scam. People are paying for a label and a fantasy.
@Greg: When I first got interested in Energy conservation, in 1975 as an Energy Engineer, the know and proven reserves of crude oil in the world was listed as 900 years plus. Well, as we well know, known and proven reserves have increased tremendously since then, so your statement about 53 years has absolutely no ring of truth to it. At that same time, known and proven reserves of natural gas was listed as ‘infinity’. As we all know, new techniques for natural gas have increased supplies many fold, so now we have at least 2x infinity supplies. There is now, and will never be, an energy shortage in the world. In fact, it is now known that crude oil is being made inside the earth at a faster rate than it’s being consumed. Greg, you and Algore need to learn a little about reality.
@Redteam, #42:
As I’ve pointed out a couple of times, that isn’t my statement. It the most recent estimate calculated by the British Petroleum company’s geologists. It’s their business to make the most accurate forecast they can, using the best and most current data available. Their most recent estimate is 50.6 years. Their previous estimate, calculated a couple of years earlier, was 53.3 years.
Neither I nor Al Gore had anything to do with it.
@Greg: #38
And Bill Nye’s degree is in mechanical engineering. Your point is? Not one of my links was to RCS, although Steve Goddard was mentioned in the text of one of the links.
I posted four links to various NASA/NOAA data manipulation circumstances.
What about the Congressional testimony of the NASA whistleblower Dr. John Bates? Are you expecting charges to be filed against him for lying to Congress?
Maybe you’re saying Tony Heller (or perhaps the Russians?) hacked into the NOAA website and changed the data?
I hate to get all pedantic on you again Greg, but that comment is what you call textbook “Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself”
Even if he *is* a conspiracy theorist (remember Hillary before you judge too harshly), was the information right or wrong? His first ‘claim’ in the link was that NOAA stated July 2012 was the hottest month on record.
Was that statement incorrect? Here’s a hint:
So he had at least that part of it right. You’re the one who says he only ‘claims’ NASA is ‘faking’ it’s data. Riddle me this, Batman, if the data has been ‘adjusted’, and the adjustment no longer comports with the actual recorded information and a review of the adjustments finds they’ve all been ‘corrected’ to the point that what was a cooling trend now shows as a warming trend; one could consider that fairly close to the definition of ‘faking’ the data, couldn’t one?
Prove to us that he’s wrong! The link to the NOAA website was in my link (I’m not going to do all your homework for you), go check it out and let us know if the current data shows 2012 as warmer or cooler than 1936.
If it’s 1936, it would seem that Heller/Goddard/whoever correctly stated the facts about the data manipulation, rather than making an unsubstantiated ‘claim’.
I was referring to the six sensationalist ‘doomsday scenarios’ provided by various warmists – that have been proven demonstrably false – and wondering which of those you felt were in line with common sense.
I guess reading comprehension is an issue. Did you not see the link regarding the improvement of seismic imaging of seafloor geology? And the *NEW* oil field beneath the Caspian Sea? That would be an addition to the ‘known reserves’ category wouldn’t it? And if it truly turns out to be ‘one of the largest ever’ a pretty good sized addition, no?
If we have been previously been unable to get sufficient imaging detail (or whatever problem there was that has apparently been overcome) and oceans cover 75% of the planet, why that’s a pretty substantial portion of the Earth yet to be explored, isn’t it? Admittedly a large chunk of that is at depths currently inaccessible, but who knows what new robotic technology might be able to do in, oh, say 53 years.
@Greg: You and Al Gore continue to sell fake science. That makes you part of it!
@Jay, #44:
Bill Nye isn’t making the calculations or forecasts, any more than Steve Goddard. On the other hand, he isn’t pitching conspiracy theory, either.
What Dr. John Bates said has been misrepresented. He made no accusation of data manipulation. He clarified that point quite specifically:
‘Whistleblower’ says protocol was breached but no data fraud
I’m not sure it’s an ad hominem argument to point out that someone repeatedly misrepresents the facts, or that they seem to fit the commonly held definition of a crackpot. That’s more in the way of an observation.
@Greg: How do you know that the Russians have a pricing advantage? Well run pipe lines are cheaper that shipping by sea. What have the Russians ever run well? You continue to use false information that you manufacture in your little mind. There is also a concern on the type of oil being sold. You make so many ignorant comments!
@Randy: They dont have to manipulate data 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.”
A scientist cant possibly make correct findings with corrupted input, but they dont care. Put all the thermometers in the middle of a blacktop parking lots. millions spent on studies and they let the gathering of 90% data fail to meet standards.
@kitt, #48:
Are surface temperature records reliable?
The article goes into considerable detail explaining how they have come to this conclusion. The potential effects of urban microsite influences are taken into consideration.
Yet somehow we are competitive. Yet fracking! Yay capitalism!
Really. The way you liberals lied about and opposed the Keystone, you would never know liberals were aware of the fact.