Umm, Isn't this a news item rather than an opinion piece? Not sure what its doing on OLO.

Yes a news item, but perhaps reinforcing the now widely held opinion, that oil is not actually dead dinosaurs, but came with the rest of the matter that formed the planet.

The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know, & the more of the pet theories of many are shown to be false.

At least the fool notion that the amount of CO2 in the air controls the temperature of the planet, is not likely to be around as long as the old theories of how oil & coal were formed.

Actually its old news; scientists and anyone with an open mind not infected by either peak oil or AGW pathologies knew that Titan has many more hydrocarbons than Earth; and Titan never had dinosaurs or ancient forests:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/14/2162556.htm

What Titan does have is an extremely molten and active core which like Earth's molten core, probabaly causes hydrocarbons to be created and moved towards the surface.

Peak oil and population pressure are merely other sides to the misanthropy of AGW and have no bearing on fact.

Beautifully put cohenite,

I’m not sure what the thrust of this article is other than a very obtuse attempt to keep oil in all forms in the public eye.

It staggers me that so many missed out on even basic physics or chemistry. Perhaps Mendelyev’s periodic table should be circulated just so we all know that all matter in the universe is explained by physics standard model and quantum physics.

I suppose they could be discounted on the basis that they have only proved accurate to 10 to the power of 24!

When we look at the size that the dinosaurs "evolved" to it is not hard to realize the there was no end of food for them which came from a planet rich with Co2, and that shows we have only scratched the surface as far as crude oil goes, there is PLENTY left but in the interest of high prices oil companies we tell you "there not much left you know".

Speaking of keeping oil in the public eye, how about this from the normally Conservative Dallas Morning News

“A group of scientists, scholars and energy experts is meeting this week at the University of Texas to discuss what they see as an impending global decline in oil production. That would mean higher prices, more conservation, an emphasis on alternatives and lots of lifestyle changes. That’s not something people want to hear – or that politicians are inclined to talk about…”

I guess that bowser on Titan is looking more and more viable eh Cohenite!

I think the tongue was well in truly in the cheek when this article was posted, it is nearly Christmas after all and a little humour sometimes goes along way.

Yeah, good stuff cohenite.

I do like this bit - "What Titan does have is an extremely molten and active core which like Earth's molten core, probabaly causes hydrocarbons to be created and moved towards the surface."

Hydrocarbons aren't the only things moved towards the surface. Geothermal (heat) energy is too. When you think about it, cohenite's sentence is closer to solving the great "Global Warming" puzzle than all the "overwhelming majority" of authoritative (highly paid) climate scientists in the IPCC consensus.

But you do have to think about it folks. A bit.

I do like your stuff cohenite, keep it up.

Oh look, a squirrel.

...and a bunny too!

Eeh, what's up Doc?

Geoff of Perth,

You are soooo right Geoff, it “is nearly Christmas after all and a little humor sometimes goes along way”.

“A group of scientists, scholars and energy experts is meeting this week at the University of Texas to discuss what they see as an impending global decline in oil production”

Ha ha ha, he he he, ho ho ho, “another group of scientists”! Ha ha ha, he he he. “

“impending global decline in oil production” He he he, ha ha ha! Oh Stop it Geoff stop it, my sides are splitting.

Geoff, sorry mate, but do you EVER get embarrassed?

Merry Christmas and here’s hoping Santa brings you the ultimate “Yellow Brick Road” wish, a BRAIN or a pair of non-rose colored glasses.

Thanks Spindoc, embarrassed? No never actually, but thanks for your concern. I always like putting out the old fishing line with a little tit-bit of information and seeing you all froth at the mouth and go for the jugular. I will pull my tongue out of my cheek now and have a chuckle. Thanks, it's early over here in the West and I needed the good laugh.

I don't think there are enough yellow bricks in WA to pave my driveway, especially as I have 14 acres and it would take an inordinate number of deliveries that I really can't afford. As to the rose coloured glasses, no need just got new specs from OPSM and they have great 'transition lens' thanks, appreciate your wishes.

I wish you and all your supporters all the best for New Year, I will continue to read the data and evidence wherever it is presented and make up my own mind in relation to the oil situation and also too any data that proves AGW is not having an impact on the globes climatic system.

Hi Geoff,

“Thanks Spindoc, embarrassed? No never actually”

Ah! The old missing embarrassment gene, my condolences.

I just loved your comment that you “will continue to read the data and evidence”

“Data” is that which is stored in books, computers, algorithms, research and heads, it is the sum total of everything humans rely upon to further science. It requires expert knowledge to interpret into something meaningful. You I presume, have the mathematical and scientific skills to interpret such data?

The next level in this hierarchy is “information”. With the requisite math and scientific skills you will have the ability to turn data into “information”.

Once you have information you will, through those very skill sets, be able to convert information into “knowledge”. This means hypothesis, testing, repeating, proof and yes, that elusive element, evidence.

So when you say “data and evidence”, you recognize that you have neither the skills nor the evidence and will instead, rely upon someone else’s opinion.

One of these days Geoff, you will recognize your inability to question the nonsense upon which you rely. At which point you will also realize you know jack sod all about jack sod all.

You are just a member of the “useful idiots club”. Unless of course, you can show us how you can convert data into evidence. Hello, we are listening!

Well oh dear Spindoc all of your assumptions above, as usual, are incorrect!

I have been published in a 'real' scientific journal, one that went through rigorous 'peer review', go figure. Have a look at this, I have others if this does not surfice: http://www.ocean-sci.net/8/545/2012/os-8-545-2012.html

Have you been peer review published?

you can take back all the other crap when you are ready.

Thanks

Geoff

Very good Geoff; how then do you explain this:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/trend

Hi Cohenite,

not sure exactly, and don't have time right now to look too deeply at this but could guess that some 'cold bias' in the data or perhaps given the timeframe involved, difficulty with extrapolation between in-situ loggers/SST devices and remote sensing (satellite) differentiations that need further analysis and modelling. It might also be accurate, until further analysis is done, it is too hard to say.

It certainly poses a question, perhaps for another day. I will look at it and see what I can find out, but will need Spindoc's oh so reverent "be able to convert information into “knowledge”. This means hypothesis, testing, repeating, proof and yes, that elusive element, evidence."

Alas, no word yet from Spindoc, I think I hear the sounds of Splut Splut Splut and a helicopter going down in flames somewhere over the horizon.

Thanks Cohenite and have a great Xmas and NY.

Oh and for Spindoc, while you are pushing out the old education material I apologise for the bad spelling earlier it should have been suffice, not surfice, a simple typo.

Cheers

Geoff

Yes, and best of the season to you too Geoff.

The reason why the general SH SST are decreasing since 2003 [when ARGO was introduced] while there are regional 'hotspots' is acknowledged by CRU here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

A generally cooling trend in SST is contradictory to AGW; I note you don't make any attributions in your abstract but it should be noted that the spike in SST around mid 2010 to 2011 was general to the SH:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/mean:12

And the globe:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/mean:12

And followed a rapid cooling prior to the spike.

I would investigate upwelling data which is known to accompany PDO shifts and which probably explains the climate shift in 1976.

Hi Geoff,

Did I just hear a splutter….”not sure exactly”… Cough……”don't have time right now to look too deeply”….cough, cough……” It certainly poses a question, perhaps for another day”…Splut, splut, splut…….”until further analysis is done”…phut, phut.... “it is too hard to say”…..clankety-clank….”I will look at it and see what I can find out”…crunch, crunch….”difficulty with extrapolation”……..puff, puff puff…….”It might also be accurate”……wheee……”that elusive element, evidence”.

I just love the smell of a spiral exit from a debate and cohenite reducing you to “gibberish”.

What is it they say about froth and bubble? Is that your best shot?

'The 2011 heat wave event also provided an insight
into conditions that may become more prevalent in Cockburn
Sound, and elsewhere, if short-term warming events become
more frequent and extreme, as predicted.'

Geoff some of those short term extreme weather events have also included blizzards, record low temps and cooling periods. Do you think they might also be part of those more frequent and extreme event predictions to which you refer and how will they impact on your peer reviewed work?

Do you think relying on historical records that only extend back to the early 2000's wise?

Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are largely made of hydrocarbons and are not light years away.

Got your heckles up I see Spindoc, sorry I ran out of posts yesterday, must talk to Graham about getting that changed eh.

Like your name and I surmise you picked it for its meaning “a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favour or against a certain organisation or public figure or may rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics” and as such, proven through your own hypocrisy it generally is apparent from this website ‘you’ actually use Cohenite as your creative representative.
Where are your facts?

So much for your statement to me vis “So when you say “data and evidence”, you recognize that you have neither the skills nor the evidence and will instead, rely upon someone else’s opinion.”

If I have read this correctly you are in fact the one using someone else’s opinion, and as such when did you become an authority on what Cohenite posts. Have you checked his facts, have you been peer review published in this field, if you have put it up, or as you similarly stated ‘Hello, I am still waiting’.

In addition, at what point did I state or indicate that I am a supporter of AGW, I didn’t and haven’t, I do however work in a scientific field which has clearly identified that our changing climate is having an impact on our benthic habitat, in particular temperate seagrass shoot density and in addition certain changes in the ecosystem ‘may’ be attributed to more localised extreme weather (not climate) events.

Get your facts straight before launching an all-out war on something I fear you know very little about. When you post some real, documented, scientifically proven material I would be more than happy to provide unbiased, critical and contemporary feedback.

I too love the smell of a spiral exit from a debate and your “gibberish” response to my final post yesterday supports me far more than you.

Cheers

Geoff

Imajulianutter, well, here I have to go again, explaining simple things to simple people. Note the words ‘may’ and ‘if’. Stop automatically going down the AGW conspiracy road every time someone posts something about anything, you will feel better at the end of each day I am sure, either that or get off your meds, they are obviously not working.

Some of those short term extreme weather events do include blizzards, record low temps and cooling periods, and yes they are part of more frequent and extreme events, primarily due to changing energy levels in our climactic system.

In our case we have a south Western Australian temperate climatic area which has scientifically been shown to have less rainfall, lower levels of groundwater intrusion into the marine habitat and a myriad of other impacts that are occurring in our ‘region’. No chances of the blizzards etc here in Perth, learn about forcing and physics and the laws of energy and you might be able to gain a simple grasp of some broader facts.

As to the “relying on historical records that only extend back to the early 2000's wise?” why yes, in our case our focus is on accurate seagrass health studies, they provide an excellent indicator of broader ecosystem health (i.e. levels of chlorophyll a, phytoplankton biomass etc).

We have very good seagrass dataset going back to about 2000, earlier than this time period the data becomes less accurate, some years results are missing and as such using data only going back to the early 2000’s is good scientific rigour, not that I would imagine you would have any understanding of this or anything that makes even the most basic or rational sense

Geoff of Middle Perth.

That was a very long diatribe about my “handle”, Spindoc. I could have saved you much trouble if you had just asked, it actually comes from fixing washing machines and spin dryers, get it? Spindoc. He he he.

Actually I quite liked your explanation, it sounded almost intellectual, hmmm, nice!

Just on to other humorous anecdotes, you say (ad nauseam) that you have been peer reviewed and work in “a scientific field”, interesting, so does my secretary, the tea lady and the garbage collector however, would love to see some of your peer reviewed work so a link would be great, thanks.

Please don’t refer us to any more of the rubbish from such as your previous link, you know, like the report from:

Cockburn Sound Management Council, Department of Environment and Conservation

The one that offers pages of research yet suggests the 2-4 degree warming in Cockburn Sound was “ warming associated with one of the strongest La Ni˜na events ever recorded” Oh so it was entirely natural was it?

Not to mention the final AGW flourish with yet another “prediction”.

“The 2011 heat wave event also provided an insight into conditions that may become more prevalent in Cockburn Sound, and elsewhere, if short-term warming events become more frequent and extreme, as predicted”.

“as predicted”? And here I was thinking this was about science.

Anyway Geoff my secretary informs me that our tea lady is available for peer reviewing after Christmas. Let me know soon as she is getting pretty booked up.

Need any spin dryer repairs whilst I’m at it?

Geoff of Perth, from your posts I gather the horrifying impression that you may be a paid employ of mine, working in a university somewhere.

I certainly hope not, when you can come out with garbage like, "Some of those short term extreme weather events do include blizzards, record low temps and cooling periods, and yes they are part of more frequent and extreme events, primarily due to changing energy levels in our climactic system".

Surely an academic could not give out such rubbish, particularly when no lesser god than the IPCC has just admitted that there is no evidence of this.

If I were a warmist I would be personally pleased about this, there is peer reviewed research suggesting that any AGW type warming will reduce the potential for energy transfer from equatorial regions to the polls, thus reducing severe weather. That is what has been happening, if you bother to look.

I suppose we are unlikely to ever get the truth from you people, as to weather you actually believe this rubbish, or simply believe it is good enough to con the average politician. I have a sneaking suspicion it is the latter. You can't all be as dumb as you appear, or can you?

“gibberish” did you say?

I give up, why bother, to the three of you, the on-line world has a word to describe you all, its called being a 'troll'

Enjoy your trolling, or washing machine fixing or whatever bunkum you idiots think qualifies you to write one iota about climate change or AGW as you seem to think it should be called.

Talk about a vacuum, you all fill it well.

At least Cohenite backs up what he states with some references, for the remainder of you: fail.

Geoff your arrogance says it all. A totally closed mind, with just enough doubt creeping in, to be terrified.

Good luck.

Thanks Hasbeen, getting back to the subject at hand:

No doubt here, have you ever read about Occam ’s razor:
To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

Bertrand Russell offers a particular version of Occam's Razor: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematical proof of a statement akin to Occam's razor, under the assumption the environment follows some unknown but computable distribution of probability.

Similarly have you heard of Liebig's Law which has been extended to biological populations (and is commonly used in ecosystem models). E.g., the growth of an organism such as a plant (in my case seagrass) may be dependent on a number of different factors, such as sunlight or mineral nutrients (e.g. nitrate or phosphate. Chlorophyll a, total suspended solids, phytoplankton biomass).

The availability of these may vary, such that at any given time one is more limiting than the others.

Liebig's Law states that growth only occurs at the rate permitted by the most limiting factor.

Neo-liberal economic theory has sought to refute the issue of resource scarcity by application of the law of substitutability and technological innovation. The substitutability 'law', which has a powerful influence on the discourse of ideas despite the lack of an empirical evidence, states that as one resource is exhausted, the prices rise due to a lack of surplus, new markets based on alternative resources appear at certain prices in order to satisfy demand. Technological innovation implies that humans are able to use technology to fill the gaps where resources are imperfectly substitutable.

The only perfect limiting factor is that which enables life to exist, energy.

No point in articulating this to you all, you have already made up your minds and need to go back to your retirement garages and troll some more.

Me, I will stick with science and see what eventuates.

Dear Geoff of Middle Perth,

Geoff the Hobbit said, “I have been published in a 'real' scientific journal, one that went through rigorous 'peer review’, go figure”.

I’m sure we would all love to “go figure” Geoff. So now that we have dispensed with the deluge of Unicorns you vomited onto your last posts, can we please have the links as requested, to the rigorously peer reviewed scientific papers to which you keep directing our attention?

Just the links and the peer reviewer details would do nicely. No more Hobbit vomit thanks.

Hey, it's reassuring to see that the quality of "debate" on climate-related topics is still as fresh, vibrant and insightful as ever.

Well done, folks.

Geoff,

all I did was ask a very reasonable question.

You answered it with personal insult and unsupportable generalities.

You also used the word gibberish.

now because your deficiencies have been pointed out all you do is hurl abuse as you walk off with your bat and ball.

Yep your's is a lost cause. Have a read of the Australian opinion page today.

Spindoc, you really need to get a grip on yourself and see what is going on in the real world.
No one believes what the oil producers both companies and countries
tell us about production.
Why do you think the Tanker Trackers are making big $ staring through
their binoculars and radar sets counting tankers and estimating their loads.
This is done because Mathew Simmons caught them with their pants down.
See Twilight in the Desert.

Crude production has been flat since 2005.
Australian refineries are closing.
Two facts that should have your ears ringing.

Good Point Bazz, no point telling these w.nkers though, they have it all figured, apparently.

I will wait 10 years and then call them all out, no doubt by then most of them will be long since gone (since their mantra is so ridiculous) but that will be such a shame noting that none of them seem to be able to read anything intelligent anyway!

Talk about a moronic Christmas for some....