Oil Slide Worries Traders. *relax* This Should Get Sorted by Year End.

(edited)

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

It is the Mainstrean Media that is repeatedly lying.  Please re-read my earlier comment:

Did the mainstream media get around to showing you the truth?  I don't watch much tv

 

Purveyors of truth often have to make corrections.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Did the mainstream media get around to showing you the truth?  I don't watch much tv

 

Purveyors of truth often have to make corrections.

The MSM is purveying toro caca, not the truth and they have no interest in making correction.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 8:35 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Gasoline, a pentane, is easily manufactured from CO2 and water.  And no, you do not need to apply fusion-level energy to do it.  Remember that we use oil from the ground, an inconvenient mineral slime, because historically it has been cheap.  But you can use any number of products to manufacture pentanes, including cow manure  (biomass),  and coal.  I think you also need a catalyst to drive the reaction, but it has been a while since I looked at the formation chain.  Just because nobody is doing it, does not mean that it cannot be done. 

This has particular interest to me in kerosene (both as jet fuel as well as heating fuel).  At the moment there is significant research into the commercialisation of synth-fuel. It will take government subsidies to get it off the ground, but the cost will come down over time. 

Here's an older article, but they are continuing work based on the success of earlier research. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140503184918.htm

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 12:35 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Gasoline, a pentane, is easily manufactured from CO2 and water.  And no, you do not need to apply fusion-level energy to do it.  Remember that we use oil from the ground, an inconvenient mineral slime, because historically it has been cheap.  But you can use any number of products to manufacture pentanes, including cow manure  (biomass),  and coal.  I think you also need a catalyst to drive the reaction, but it has been a while since I looked at the formation chain.  Just because nobody is doing it, does not mean that it cannot be done. 

Jan, you have proposed methanol use in the past. I have read other methanol advocates in the past. Please tell me what you think the future of methanol actually is. I am an advocate of natural gas and biogas, as you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Jan, you have proposed methanol use in the past. I have read other methanol advocates in the past. Please tell me what you think the future of methanol actually is. I am an advocate of natural gas and biogas, as you know. 

Well, Ron, Methanol is simply the liquid version of natural gas. 

Both methanol and ethanol, its slightly more complex cousin, are liquid fuels that will burn cleanly.  They are "drop-in" fuels for systems that currently use either diesel or gasoline.  Some modifications of the engines are required; the big factor is that the fuels handling systems are compatible.  For heavy shipping, there are already large fuel tanks in spaces in the bilge of the hull.  Instead of filling with diesel, you would fill with the alcohol. Plus you don't have the complexity of storing flammable gas under pressure in specially-fitted pressure tanks in a ship, which would require major modification  (more logical to do that with a newbuild if you are going to go to compressed natural gas). 

Note that methanol requires replacement of the engine heads.  Also, methanol produces much less power in the engine.  Methanol is currently favored by the shipping community mostly because of the drop-in fuel characteristics.  All that said, it is now my belief that the new development of extracting bitumen from oil sands, which results in a remarkably clean product with no sulfur or water, is likely going to end up being the bunker fuel source for heavy shipping.  Just my hunch.  Cheers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 3:49 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the pots of coffee and stop artificially panicking.  Near as I can tell, $70 - ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance between the global economy and oil producers.  I hope the current over-reaction on the oil price See Saw will settle back to around $70 by end of this year or early next year.  Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

< cough >

Today's editorial on Oil Price main news site:

Oil Prices Set To Rebound In 2019

Wall Street: Oil prices will rebound.  Most major investment banks are forecasting a rebound in oil prices in 2019. Price forecasts vary widely, but most have both WTI and Brent above current spot prices. Bank of America Merrill Lynch, for instance, sees WTI averaging $59 per barrel in 2019. Citi is at the bearish end with a $49 price target. For Brent, Barclays says the benchmark will average $72, and a half dozen other investment banks have price estimates within a few dollars of that price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People want to be optimistic .

People don't change easily , because change would require relocation and new positive job perspectives .

The income of banks is created by loans , and banks need an optimistic outlook to receive debt customers .

 

My guess is , that predictions of "experts" are of the positive kind , usually getting worse .

Here in this case , I would side with Citi Bank with $49 .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karl V said:

Here in this case , I would side with Citi Bank with $49 .

I see it closer to $45 or $46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 3:03 PM, William Edwards said:

I am unable to find any historical support relating the cost of the marginal barrel to the price. Please provide me with the data that I have missed. I realize that one line of reasoning suggests that that should be the case, but so far it hasn't been implemented. Of course, it is possible that economic theory diverges from reality.

William,

Not suggesting price will move in lockstep with the most costly barrels to produce (the marginal barrels).  But at some point if the cost to produce a barrel of is consistently a money losing proposition, future barrels will no longer be produced from that well.

Likewise when considering whether to complete a project or not, those projects which are not expected to offer a sufficient return on investment will not go forward if expected future prices will lead to low profitability.

In the short run you are correct, but in the long run you are not.  If you are looking for a simple one to one correspondence in the data, you will not find it, every model diverges from reality, economic models and social science models in general.

Controlled experiments in social science are not possible and existence of and knowledge of a theory changes the behavior of economic actors, one would be surprised if economic theory did reflect reality exactly as human behavior and social interactions are exceedingly complex.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, D Coyne said:

William,

Not suggesting price will move in lockstep with the most costly barrels to produce (the marginal barrels).  But at some point if the cost to produce a barrel of is consistently a money losing proposition, future barrels will no longer be produced from that well.

Likewise when considering whether to complete a project or not, those projects which are not expected to offer a sufficient return on investment will not go forward if expected future prices will lead to low profitability.

In the short run you are correct, but in the long run you are not.  If you are looking for a simple one to one correspondence in the data, you will not find it, every model diverges from reality, economic models and social science models in general.

Controlled experiments in social science are not possible and existence of and knowledge of a theory changes the behavior of economic actors, one would be surprised if economic theory did reflect reality exactly as human behavior and social interactions are exceedingly complex.

@Dennis Coyne I'm utterly flabbergasted at your comment.  In a good way.  We used to verbally spar over various topics back in the day on the old Oilpro forum.

I've re-read your 4 paragraphs above, and cannot find anything that we disagree on here.  Logically and clearly laid out, without creating any friction.  I'm impressed.

Pretty sure we will eventually go back to the regularly scheduled program of verbal sparring and debate.  Maybe my views have changed as I get older and grayer.  Or maybe your comments have become more persuasive.  But it's nice to agree on things.  Cheers.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2018 at 1:12 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Yet the shale drillers and pumpers are not going to stop production simply because the price drops to the point even of negative cash flow.  The reason lies inside the financing structure of these small producers.  They raise their capital by solicitations of private investors who are classified as having capital and total assets above a threshold level that brings them to the status of "sophisticated investor."  Basically, only folks who know what they are doing and have the ability to sustain capital losses are allowed to buy into those investment pools, as limited partners.  Now those folks get seriously upset when the production dividend checks do not emerge, so there is this pressure to pump and sell simply to keep "something" flowing to the investors, or the drill General Partners, the fellows putting the drill deals together, will end up shunned, effectively blackballed.  

Nobody in the oilpatch can afford to take the risk of angering the investors.  Thus, even if WTI sinks to $38, those guys are going to continue to drill and continue to pump, and sell, and issue dividends.  Otherwise they have committed suicide with the investors. The implication is that WTI is going to continue to sink, oil will continue to gush, and will continue to stay well below your target of $60.  Way of the world.  

My naive guess is that a "sophisticated" investor would be more likely to think long-term.  Is your point that the investors are taking their profits now via dividends before these companies fail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2018 at 5:50 PM, Illurion said:

So,  when it comes to WHO Trump does the right thing for,  i tend to think it is for WE AMERICANS,  or for HIS FAMILY.

I believe like most people,  he would do most anything for his kids.

A retired friend of mine, who happens to be an excellent husband and father, made a similar point.  The way he phrased it is that a man's priorities change as he ages - esp. if he's a father.  Trump is a successful man.  He has prestige, he has family, and he has the money to do whatever he wants.  Trump has nothing to prove.  Why, then, would he spend years of his life catching flack from all directions and working himself into the dirt?  The most reasonable answer is family.  A childless man doesn't care what happens after he dies, but a father wants his family to live in a better world - and he'll sacrifice his own comfort to achieve that.  That's Trump. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the globalists - such as Merkel and Macron - are childless while those labeled "strongmen" - such as Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro, and Xi Jinping - have children.  The childless leaders will feel free to play risky games because they've no family to protect.  Without family bonds, they may also try to fill the gaping void in their lives through generosity to the world at large.  Parents, on the other hand, tend to avoid extreme actions for fear the backlash will target their children, and they'll have a loyalty to the countries & societies their children live in.

There are exceptions, of course, but being an older parent/grandparent is a good sign.  More than anything else, Trump's family orientation is why I trust his world view.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2018 at 7:56 PM, Razoo said:

It appears Putin has bought Trump and it is difficult for me to trust anyone who lies many times in excess of 100 times per day.

Trump's lies are public, obvious, and compulsive.  He also tends to be broadly correct on his narrative/direction while being wildly incorrect on specific details.  A chief executive's job is to lead, which requires narrative and direction.  Asking for low-level details from someone who leads an entire country is just pedantry. 

By contrast, the leftists tend to be the exact opposite: they use meticulously correct, carefully selected facts to build warped narratives.  This is subtle, and its subtlety makes it incredibly dangerous.  E.g. I had the opportunity to watch CNN news reports on Iraq as I fought there.  They were perfectly factual, yet the narrative they spun left out key context and details.  Their reports were intentionally misleading, resulting in the death of innocents and combatants alike. 

I would argue Trump is a good man with bad optics while his opponents are wolves in sheep's clothing.  Don't fear the loudmouth; fear the refined sociopath. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 3:18 AM, jaycee said:

You misunderstand I am not suggesting he is making incorrect decisions to benefit himself, he is making these decisions through his inability to understand what he is doing. For example his withdrawal from Syria is going to benefit either Turkey who get to attack the US proxy footsoldiers in Syria, the Kurds, or Russia, Syria and Iran to who the Kurds will need to side with to avoid being slaughtered. This callous disregard for local allies will mean in future interventions by the US overseas more US troops will die as local proxies will be less likely to side with a fickle ally.

 

On 12/24/2018 at 7:29 AM, Illurion said:

Good point.

I would not call it "callous" though.

 But nothing new.

Obama, and Carter have already shown many allies that the USA can be "fickle".

 As for the Kurds,   i have felt very bad for them for decades now.

The Kurds really should have their own country. 

Instead,  they are split up in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey,  and are oppressed in all of those places. 

A week or so ago in another thread,  i said that since LEBANON is really a non-nation,  kept unstable by Hezbollah,  that wouldn't it be great if ALL KURDS FROM EVERYWHERE moved to Lebanon,  defeated Hezbollah,  and stabilized the country.

If not Lebanon,  then Somalia,  or some other unstable place. 

  

Is it not possible that Turkey, as a US ally, would respect the Kurds in Syria in exchange for our withdrawal?  I believe we still have CIA agents over there; wouldn't their promise to not interfere still stand? 

On the other hand, suppose the world stopped trusting the US.  That would discourage us from future foreign adventures, refocusing our attention on economic independence and domestic issues.  I believe that's what the world has wanted from us for a long time, and it seems it would be a boon for us.  Where's the down side? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2018 at 4:29 PM, Meredith Poor said:

One of the issues with places like Idaho is 'distance from markets'. There is a vast amount of kerogen in the Green River Formation. The problem isn't just converting it to a fuel, it's how it's going to get from where it is to, for example, the gulf coast, California, or the east coast. Is there any point in building pipelines or track to carry it off? 

Once built, pipelines are a cheap form of transportation.  Ergo, we've already built pipelines from Alberta to the Gulf Coast.  Adding Idaho would be relatively easy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/26/2018 at 1:29 PM, Enthalpic said:

No doubt Trump is causing change for Americans / the world but not much good.

Depends on who you ask.  I grew up around Trump voters, I fully understand why they voted for him, and I I already see them gaining from his presidency.  Everyone else may not gain - but then, the world spent 10-20 years taking advantage of Trump's constituency, so I don't think they'll care what happens to the world. 

On 12/26/2018 at 1:29 PM, Enthalpic said:

I'm a university educated Canadian liberal with financial stability - obviously I'm what's wrong with the world! 🍺🍺 Cheers

More so than any other group I've met, university educated liberals with financial stability tend to be utterly oblivious to how their actions affect others.  More so than you realize, you are exactly what's wrong with the world. 

Edited by mthebold
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2018 at 6:13 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Thanks for making me laugh this morning  : )

Hey @Rodent I'd like to collect my manipulative award please.  It would be an amusing award to get   : )   : )

  

 

On 12/26/2018 at 6:54 PM, TXPower said:

Although I offer no defense for any of President Trump’s lies, real or perceived, honesty and rationality require the truth be admitted. President Trump certainly isn’t the first and damn sure will not be the last president or world leader to lie and manipulate the truth.  

This particular president does enjoy tweeting just to watch the talking heads of the MSM and leftist/globalists explode.  Unorthodox, yes.  But silly little shills fall for it every time and feign righteous indignation.  Not sure which is more childish.

 

On 12/26/2018 at 5:42 PM, Enthalpic said:

He is either drastically misinformed or being deceitful.  A lie told for a purpose is still a lie.  You know this deep down... "master troll" and "headfakes"  - a headfake is a lie.

Fun lesson from war: if if a peer enemy starts using an effective weapon and you to refuse to do the same, you lose.  The rules of war only work if everyone follows them. 

When people claim that Trump lies, my immediate reaction is:

image.png.0157e4e38c8a4cdc6086d379c966662a.png

Trump's constituents have been in a fight with liars for decades.  Due to an overabundance of trust and good will, they've only recently realized they can't win by playing fair.  These were good people; once they realized they'd been swindled, good will was replaced by indignation, anger, and aggression.  They elected Trump specifically to sink to the opposition's level and beat them with experience.  The whole point is for him to lie, cheat, and steal - as is custom in DC - until they reclaim their country. 

If Trump impoverishes liberals and foreigners in the process, it will simply be what they've earned.  Anyone who doesn't understand that sentiment needs to spend some time in rural America. 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mthebold said:

More so than any other group I've met, university educated liberals with financial stability tend to be utterly oblivious to how their actions affect others.  More so than you realize, you are exactly what's wrong with the world. 

That's interesting from you, given I have shown you lie about claims.

Anyhow, as a generalisation your claim does not stand as the tendency is one is "liberal" because they are more conscious than most of how their actions affect others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Red said:

Anyhow, as a generalisation your claim does not stand as the tendency is one is "liberal" because they are more conscious than most of how their actions affect others. 

Feeling for other people and understanding how to help them are completely different things.  The liberal's characteristic combination of great feeling combined with utter inexperience is what makes him so dangerous.  To wit: people who let universities fill their heads with political ideas and, without experiencing anything else, assume they know how the world works.  I'm reminded of a good quip, author unknown:

"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain." 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Feeling for other people and understanding how to help them are completely different things.  Read what I wrote - my sense captured both aspects.  The liberal's characteristic combination of great feeling combined with utter inexperience is what makes him so dangerous.  Your evidence is where?  To wit: people who let universities fill their heads with political ideas and, without experiencing anything else, assume they know how the world works.  ditto - mere opinion and highly speculative at that. I'm reminded of a good quip, author unknown:

"If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain." These are not "exclusives" and you may be living proof - at least in respect of a functional brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Red said:

The liberal's characteristic combination of great feeling combined with utter inexperience is what makes him so dangerous.  Your evidence is where?  To wit: people who let universities fill their heads with political ideas and, without experiencing anything else, assume they know how the world works. 

Hi, Red,  I cannot speak for Australia, but here in North America the evidence is, sadly, all around us.  For perhaps the most glaring example, I would invite you to contemplate the Province of Ontario for the past 15 years.  It was led by the Liberal Party with Kathleen Wynne at the helm.  Wynne and the people around here were classic university liberals.  They started out by stating, with zero evidence, that "global warming was caused by burning of fossil fuels"  (and although I really don't want to get involved in that discussion, I will state for the record that that conclusion is implausible), and that thus "they," the great liberal leadership charge for the common people of Ontario  (including rural Ontario, the functional equivalent of mthebold's rural America), would have to "fix that" by going all-out for "renewable energy." 

The path chosen by Wynne and the university liberals was to set up vast fields of solar panels and wind-propeller machines - and shut down nuclear reactors.  This has caused immense financial pain, as prices went through the roof, and the result was that the manufacturing heart of Canada went from being an industrial powerhouse that ran the entire country, to a beggar Province with its little tin cup out, begging fr=or "equalization payments" from the other Provinces (themselves made poorer by the seriously dumb policies of the Wynne Liberal Party).  What has happened is so staggering, so devastating, that I personally doubt it will ever recover. 

Just to expand a bit on the Ontario experience, the combination of the university-educated provincial liberals and the ones in Ottawa had been demonstrated by Chrystia Freeland, the (quite brilliant) Federal Minister in charge of just about everything, and Justin Trudeau's go-to Minister.  Now keep in mind as you read this that I personally really like Chrystia, I like intelligent people.  That said, she has been a disaster for Canada.  Getting past the tweeting that caused the Saudis to totally get unhinged and pull all their university students (who paid full tuition) out of Canada  (there were lots, in the thousands if not tens of thousands), she proceeds to lead the charge against the "stumpage fee tariffs" in discussions with the heard-headed brutes that The Donald installed for new NAFTA Negotiations.  That led to a stiff stumpage fee tariff and market quotas for Canada in the US Market.  

Next up were the steel and aluminum tariffs, again thugggishly imposed by Trump's men, but met with classic university liberal statements, saying "We will get a waiver for Canada or else."   What, are you kidding me?  You think because you make some pronouncement, that therefore the USA is going to genuflect before your wisdom?   See, the world does not work like that, and the inability to grasp that is what made Chrystia such a spectacular failure.   So the bet the university liberals could do was go down to the unemployed workers in the Hamilton, Ontario steel mills and promise "Federal help."  Well, their ideas of Federal Help don't really do much when your employer just lost the market that was 90% of your plant's output. 

Why were the university liberals so dangerous in Canada?  Well, they got the idea, promoted by university professors in economics, that the population of 24 million was "too small" to support a thriving domestic market.  That, of course, is total rubbish, classic university crap, the kind of stuff you also get out of Harvard in the USA.  But the Canadian Liberals, and specifically Wynne, bought into that intellectual narrative, along with their ideas that nuclear power was "bad," and they instituted wide-open immigration, pumping the population up to 36 million. 

Now the problem with that is that there were and are no classical jobs for those millions, especially the ones that had no "professional services" training, such as being an accountant.  And the factories that might have supported some smaller number in expansion went bust,due to trade deals with the Pacific Rim, where grain sales were expanded, but factory goods were now imported.  Grain sales supports few increased labor numbers; the factory goods in China supported lots of new employees, but they are located in Chine, Vietnam, Indonesia - you see the problem.  Meanwhile those migrants have to be housed, and the result has been huge distortions in the real estate market. The result of that is that fully half of Canadians will be life-long renters, and never own a home. 

And that is, collectively, what makes those university liberals so  dangerous: they cannot grasp the larger picture, of the effects of their ideas on the society.  And, invariably, those effects are disastrous.  A very sad situation.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

Is it not possible that Turkey, as a US ally, would respect the Kurds in Syria in exchange for our withdrawal?  I believe we still have CIA agents over there; wouldn't their promise to not interfere still stand? 

Short answer is no, please read the article which explains the situation. 

Regards my forecasting of what would happen it also proves me right in that the Kurds are now siding with Syria,and Russia is brokering the deal, to avoid being wiped out by Turkey. Trump has actually realized the error of his stupid decision and is now trying to roll back on the immediate withdraw rhetoric, again read the article. Conclusive proof the man is an idiot with no idea of the consequences of what he says.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds/syrian-kurds-seek-damascus-deal-regardless-of-us-moves-idUSKCN1OY1ET

Excerpt

The Kurdish-led administration that runs much of northern Syria presented a road map for an agreement with Assad during recent meetings in Russia and are awaiting Moscow’s response, Badran Jia Kurd, who attended, said.

If such a deal could be agreed, it would piece back together the two biggest chunks of a country splintered by eight years of war and leave one corner of the northwest in the hands of anti-Assad rebels backed by Turkey.

The talks with Russia and new overtures towards Damascus underline a recalibration of Kurdish strategy since President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw U.S. forces whose presence has stabilized the Kurdish-led region.

Their immediate priority is to find a way to shield the region from Turkey, which views the Kurdish YPG militia as a national security threat.

Turkey has already sent its army into Syria twice to roll back the YPG. But it has held off attacking the large Kurdish-controlled area of the northeast where U.S. forces operate.

Trump, who has not set out a withdrawal timetable, said on Wednesday the United States would leave slowly “over a period of time”. He also said the United States wanted to protect Kurds, who have been vital to the U.S. campaign against Islamic State.

Jia Kurd welcomed the idea of a slow withdrawal but said the United States had not discussed the pullout with its Syrian allies who were caught off guard by Trump’s announcement.

To fill the expected vacuum, they want Russia to help secure a Syrian army deployment at the northern border. This is part of a wider effort to strike a deal with Damascus they hope will also safeguard their regional autonomy.

Edited by jaycee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Hi, Red,  I cannot speak for Australia, but here in North America the evidence is, sadly, all around us.  For perhaps the most glaring example, I would invite you to contemplate the Province of Ontario for the past 15 years.  It was led by the Liberal Party with Kathleen Wynne at the helm. 

Jan, my understanding is that in democracies people get what they vote for.  I am not American, but I do not see the US government implementing sound policies in many areas (which means I should say where and why, but I am keeping this brief).  

History is littered with leaders at many levels exercising poor judgement, or enacting policies leading to unhappy endings.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Red said:

Jan, my understanding is that in democracies people get what they vote for.  I am not American, but I do not see the US government implementing sound policies in many areas (which means I should say where and why, but I am keeping this brief).  

History is littered with leaders at many levels exercising poor judgement, or enacting policies leading to unhappy endings.  

 

All true, Red, but that was not the question being posited.  The issue placed before the forum was whether or not university-educated liberals, in politics, tended to be tone deaf and have no understanding of either how the world works or what sort of damage they would do by implementing what are essentially messianistic ideas.  I set forth the disasters of the Wynne Liberals in Ontario as one example of this dynamic at work. 

Are there Conservative leaders who are also tone-deaf and set in motion disastrous ideas?  Sure there are.  WInston Churchill and his ideas of invading Gallipoli are one example.  Privatizing rail transport in the Netherlands is another. Those are out there.  But, big but, we were discussing the specific case of the university-educated Liberal in Canada.  In the USA,  there are lots and lots of examples of basically bright people who are deaf to the consequences of their proposals.  Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, he who has never held a non-political job and is now 76, and is considered as a lovable old grandpa, is a great example.  He has all these great proposals but no clue how to pay for them.  Is that exclusive?  Of course not!  Pres. Trump right now has half the US Govt shut down because he wants $5 Billion from Congress to go build his Wall.  How's that for obstinacy?  the unintended consequence is that the Border Patrol agents are not being paid.  I don't see them being too enthusiastic to go out there rooting around in the brush in the night with no paycheck for the family coming in.  Hey, dumb comes in lots of colors.  Cheers. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I will state for the record that that conclusion is implausible

First, the types of human activities contributing to the amount of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere include CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, the emission of methane (eg. from livestock and crop cultivation) and nitrous oxide (eg. from fertilizer use).  Burning of fossil fuel accounts for 50-65% of the human-induced emissions while deforestation accounts for 10-25% and up to 20% comes from methane and nitrous oxide.   Each of these GHGs has a different forcing effect, and CO2 is used as the reference base.

Atmospheric carbon has an isotopic footprint and it's possible to separately quantify the changing amounts of these isotopes so that we can separate contributions of carbon-14 (which result from burning fossil fuels), from carbon-12&13 (which occur from otherwise "natural" factors.

If the concentration of GHGs increase then the only way the planet could cool would be for irradiance to decrease at a greater rate than the forcing effect, or for other atmospheric contributions to alter markedly (eg via aerosols, or volcanic eruptions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites