Friday, September 09, 2011

Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Jeff Landry (R-LA) during Obama's speech last night.
 
Statement from Rep. Landry: "By allowing the hard-working people in the Gulf of Mexico to ply their trade, we can save 25,000 job. And by lifting the ban on new offshore drilling, we could create 1.2 million jobs.  Mr. President, do the right thing: let us drill."

37 Comments:

At 9/09/2011 1:49 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Another job creator? Make the fossil fuel industry comply with environmental regulations. There's a lot of work needed to achieve that. And unlike the "drill baby drill" job creation plan this one helps the environment instead of wrecking it.

 
At 9/09/2011 1:54 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

And ask the Bush Bros why they obtained a permanent ban on drilling of of Florida.

 
At 9/09/2011 2:10 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Jon and "Benji", a tag team of stupid.

 
At 9/09/2011 2:24 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

While the national unemployment rate was 9.1 percent in July, the unemployment rate for the oil and gas sector (within a category that also includes mining and quarrying) was 6 percent, down about 4 percentage points from a year earlier.

According to data from the Labor Department, U.S. jobs directly involved with finding, developing and producing oil and gas rose by more than 50 percent in the last decade. These jobs – drillers, engineers, construction workers – have a multiplier effect on employment; a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that each direct job in the U.S. oil and gas industry supports more than three jobs elsewhere in the economy.

All told, the PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimated that the entire U.S. oil and gas industry supported 9.2 million full-time and part-time jobs, and that the total economic “value added” by our industry was $1.1 trillion, or 7.7 percent of U.S. GDP, in 2009.

For example, a recent study found that almost 190,000 new jobs could be created by 2013 if permitting for offshore development in the Gulf of Mexico returned to levels before the Obama administration’s moratorium. Another study estimated that if New York were to ease its de facto moratorium on Marcellus Shale gas development, some 15,000 to 18,000 new jobs could be created in the Southern Tier and Western New York, regions that lost a combined 48,000 payroll jobs between 2000 and 2010.

Even supporting energy production by our neighbors can help bolster jobs in the U.S. The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) estimates that employment in the U.S. supported by new investments in Canada’s oil sands could grow to a peak of 600,000 jobs in 2035, according to one research scenario.

ExxonMobile - "Perspectives"

Real jobs. Real wealth.

 
At 9/09/2011 2:27 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Most environmental regs any more have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with politics.

By the way, anyone see the BP Gulf oil spill lately? No? Huh. I thought it would destroy the Gulf as we know it. Guess not.

 
At 9/09/2011 2:34 PM, Blogger Marko said...

I am not really a conspiracy guy, but it is really really starting to look like they don't want to fix the problem. Really.

 
At 9/09/2011 2:37 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Video Essay: Life in an Oil Field 'Man Camp'

"I was going to go to school for alternative energy, and here I am in the oil fields. So much for solar panels."

 
At 9/09/2011 2:54 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Drilling = Jobs

I don't think math is one of Obama's strong points.

Anyway, he was looking at the teleprompters.

 
At 9/09/2011 3:31 PM, Blogger Jon said...

I don't know if you noticed, Che, but I didn't claim it wouldn't create jobs. Of course it would create jobs.

Other things create jobs. Wars create jobs. Oil companies hire mercenaries to wipe out indigenous peoples in places like Ecuador. There's a job creator. We could go around town and smash windows in homes of the wealthy. That would create jobs. There are plenty of ways to create jobs. We just have to ask ourselves what the best ways would be.

Should we try to figure out ways to belch even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? 2010 was the hottest year on record. Global warming is man made and is a major problem. Should we make it a priority to make the situation worse? Is that the best way to create jobs? That's the question, not whether or not drilling more would in fact lead to more jobs.

 
At 9/09/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

"2010 was the hottest year on record. Global warming is man made and is a major problem."

You must have missed Climategate. And the NASA report that more heat is dissipating into space than any climate "model" ever predicted. Or that NOAA pulled temperature monitoring stations out of cooler climates. Or the resignation letter of Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society in which he called the global warming hoax, "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/) Or the satellite data that shows as much global sea ice today as there was when satellites first mapped it in 1979.

It's a hoax. It's a lie. It's a fraud.

 
At 9/09/2011 3:59 PM, Blogger rjs said...

if you believe oil will be more expensive in the future, it pays to store it in your country till then, and buy today's cheaper oil from OPEC...

i'd hate to drain america first, and be stuck without secure supplies later...

 
At 9/09/2011 4:24 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Oh yeah, I've heard of Climate Gate. Have you? Have you heard that the controversy has been REPEATEDLY shown to be manufactured by taking statements grossly out of context and distorting the facts? See here. As to your "NASA" report, yeah, you have a committed Christian that published a paper in a journal that doesn't deal with climate science and this was panned by mainstream scientists. Some reporting on it here. You're always going to have some dissenters, but the scientific consensus is overwhelming. No scientific body of national or international standing dissents from this consensus, the last holdout being the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's the kind of consensus that exists amongst historians that the holocaust did occur. A few wackos dissent. So what? This is as conclusive as it gets.

"But Hal Lewis doesn't agree." Is this how science is done? Find a single dissenter that subscribes to the minority position? That position happens to be extremely profitable?

 
At 9/09/2011 4:33 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I'm all for drilling. I'm all for drilling Here, now, everywhere.

But, we import 9.5 Million bbl/day. There's not an oilman, alive that will tell you that we can cut that by as much as a third if we drill in every back yard in America.

Which means we need to do other things at the same time. We pay landowners Not to plant 30,000,000 Acres. Those acres could be in Energy Grasses.

We need to encourage, if we can, in some way, the electrification of railroads. That saves a bunch of Diesel. A whole bunch.

I'm not talking about "transforming America," but we could make a few improvements on our energy systems here, and there.

This really shouldn't be an "either/or" question.

 
At 9/09/2011 5:39 PM, Blogger rjs said...

just FYI, since it came up:

Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

In developments that could shake and shape northwestern Canada ports from Prince Rupert. B.C. to Churchill, Manitoba the first tankers and bulk carriers have begun crossing the fabled Northwest Passage between Asia and Europe...In August, the 100,000-tonne Russian tanker Baltica left Europe loaded with gas concentrate for China, the first high-tonnage European tanker to navigate the NW passage.

http://www.westerninvestor.com/index.php/news/bc/130-first-tankers-bulk-carriers-sail-through-northwest-passage

 
At 9/09/2011 6:29 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Oh yeah, I've heard of Climate Gate. Have you? Have you heard that the controversy has been REPEATEDLY shown to be manufactured by taking statements grossly out of context and distorting the facts?" -- Jon

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” -- Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center, promising Penn State’s Michael Mann on July 8, 2004, that he and Kevin Trenberth (of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research) would keep dissenting papers out of the next IPCC report

A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing. The document, an interview transcript, will put an end to the foolish talk of anything resembling a ClimateGate “inquiry” having taken place. It will also invite a real inquiry into the affair. -- DailyCaller

“The University of East Anglia’s Climategate inquiries were not sufficiently transparent and failed to properly investigate some key issues, the Commons Science and Technology Committee has concluded.” -- Times Higher Ed

A committee of MPs has described two independent inquiries into the ‘climategate scandal’ as ‘unsatisfactory’ because they failed to answer important questions about allegedly missing emails. -- UKTelegraph

TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive. -- UKExpress

Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC -- UKTelegraph

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews. -- WSJ

UVA has repeatedly stonewalled FOIA inquiries related to the work of Michael Mann. Why?

Once again, you prove to be limited in your reading and susceptible to left-wing dogma.

 
At 9/09/2011 6:34 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"As to your "NASA" report, yeah, you have a committed Christian that published a paper in a journal that doesn't deal with climate science and this was panned by mainstream scientists." -- Jon

You can understand why the Climate McCarthyites want to suppress Dr. Spencer. He’s only been a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA for more than a decade, co-designer of NASA’s satellites that monitor global temperatures, winner of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and author of several books on the subject, including Climate Confusion, and The Great Global Warming Blunder. -- Powerline

Putting aside your anti-Christian bigotry, Dr. Spencer is the very definition of a "mainstream scientist". Your ignorance is not evidence.

 
At 9/09/2011 6:43 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Find a single dissenter that subscribes to the minority position? That position happens to be extremely profitable?" -- Jon

No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, just one of the "green" companies in which Gore has invested has received over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Energy Department. Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. A mere decade later, estimates are that he is worth $100 million. He's been touted in the press as one day becoming the first "carbon billionaire." According to the Science & Public Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid and tax breaks. Compare that with, say, Exxon-Mobil Corp., which is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics. According to the World Bank, the value of carbon trading doubled from $63 billion in 2007 to $126 billion in 2008. Big money has been and can be made by conning governments into formulating policies based on fraudulently hyped climate hysteria. -- IBD

NASA's James Hansen, for example, won a $250,000 Heinz Award in 2001, and last month was co-winner of the $1 million Dan David Prize. As Jacoby notes: Other awards have gone to other prophets of doom. And the potential rewards don't stop there. For those who toe the politically correct line on global warming, there have been big book contracts, hefty speaking fees, worshipful magazine profiles, softball TV interviews. Should any of that call their objectivity into question -- BostonGlobe

One need only look at the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that have been diverted to "green tech" companies, like Solyndra, to understand that the real money is in supporting and promoting the global warming myth.

 
At 9/09/2011 7:02 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Jon,

Canada's National Post exposes the vulnerability of one of your favorite sources of information:

...The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history....

...Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

NationalPost

 
At 9/09/2011 7:10 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"A few wackos dissent. So what? This is as conclusive as it gets." -- Jon

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

The admission that the society needs to conduct the review is a blow to attempts by the UN to reach a global deal on cutting emissions. The Royal Society is viewed as one of the leading authorities on the topic and it nominated the panel that investigated and endorsed the climate science of the University of East Anglia. ...

The Times

There are literally hundreds of mainstream scientists who reject the current hysteria being promulgated by the environmental left over "climate change", including men like Richard Lindzen of MIT - who, for your information, has never taken a dime from the oil companies. But even if there were only one, and he was right, that would be all that was necessary. Science does not operate by consensus, it operates on evidence and facts.

 
At 9/09/2011 7:21 PM, Blogger Marko said...

"2010 was the hottest year on record." That is only because our records don't go back very far (about 100 years) - especially in terms of measuring changes on a climactic scale.

 
At 9/09/2011 7:25 PM, Blogger Marko said...

"Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable"

Just FYI - this same thing happened in the early 20th century. Wasn't man made global warming then, so that undermines it as evidence for man made global warming now.

You don't have to be anti-science to question the evidence for man made global warming - in fact, the more you know about "science" and the actual data, the more likely you are to be skeptical. At least I am, and I have studied philosophy of science considerably more than most.

 
At 9/09/2011 7:28 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Good stuff le Che est morte!

 
At 9/09/2011 7:31 PM, Blogger Marko said...

Rufus II - Natural Gas!

 
At 9/09/2011 7:36 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation ... This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes ... it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth. -- UKRegister

Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced. Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland which they say is an accurate way to measure the extent of ancient ice loss. Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago ... They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely. -- BBC

Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels. -- WattsUpWithThat

In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a “D” in Natural Sciences. Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118. Gore, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on global warming. For his college board achievement tests, Gore earned a 488 (out of 800) in physics, and a 519 (out of 800) in chemistry. Gore’s academic records were first obtained and reported on by reporters David Maraniss and Ellen Nakashima at The Washington Post in March 2000. -- CNSNews

The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. -- Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

continued ...

 
At 9/09/2011 7:36 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

continued ...

Was 2010 the Warmest Year Ever? -- Powerline

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 - that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken - those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently. -- IceCap

New Zealand National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research has been forced to retract their phony temperature numbers for the past century: “NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century. For all their talk about warming, for all their rushed invention of the “Eleven-Station Series” to prove warming, this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960. Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were falling during that period." -- ScoopNZ

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Jon - It's time you got a clue.

 
At 9/09/2011 7:51 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable" -- rjs

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979. -- DailyTech,2009

Artic Sea Ice Back To Normal: Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year. -- HeraldSun,2010

Knowing how the massive ice sheets atop Antarctica and Greenland work is key to predicting how global warming could raise sea levels and flood coastal cities. But a new study upends what scientists thought they knew. It turns out it’s not just ancient snow that makes up the ice sheets, but water deep under the sheets also thaws and refreezes over time. To put it in non-scientific terms, lead scientist Robin Bell told msnbc.com, the study redefines "how squishy" the base of ice sheets can be. "This matters to how fast ice will flow and how fast ice sheets will change." "It also means that ice sheet models are not correct," she said, comparing it to "trying to figure out how a car will drive but forgetting to add the tires. The performance will be very different if you are driving on the rims." -- MSNBC

 
At 9/10/2011 12:08 PM, Blogger Jon said...

Che, you've given mountains of information, so I'm just going to bite of a bit, starting at the beginning.

Your sources criticized earlier investigations as not answering key questions and not being transparent enough. My source is in reference to further investigations which occurred subsequently and likewise cleared Mann of the charges.

For a well done and interesting video addressing some of the key issues, watch this at YouTube.

 
At 9/10/2011 12:24 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Make the fossil fuel industry comply with environmental regulations"...

I got a better idea, let's dump those environmental rules dreamt up by the clueless and the theives...

"Jon and "Benji", a tag team of stupid"...

Amen!

The pseudo benny thinks that if he repeats a lie often enough it will somehow morph into a fact...

 
At 9/10/2011 12:40 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hmmm, let's see...

jon uses the repeatedly debunked sources of NPR, Wikipedia, some moonbat Aussie but what about the SUPREME GORON?

The real problem for 'progresso-lefties', thieves, and knaves is that there is a strong fear that next US President will quit financing the delusion and all the people who were leeching off the taxpayers will then have to find real jobs...

 
At 9/10/2011 1:19 PM, Blogger rjs said...

September 6, 2011
Arctic sea ice near record lows

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 
At 9/10/2011 1:47 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Arctic sea ice near record lows"...

Thank you SBVOR: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reaches Record High

 
At 9/10/2011 3:32 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Che,

Thank you, sir. There was stuff there I hadn't seen regarding the global warming hoax. More ammo.

Unfortunately, the zealots won't ever believe it.

 
At 9/10/2011 11:06 PM, Blogger Mkelley said...

If the "warmists" have such a strong case for man-caused warming, how come their poster boy is so afraid of the public seeing his work? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/mann-hires-attorneys-to-halt-foia-document-production/

 
At 9/11/2011 2:14 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"For a well done and interesting video addressing some of the key issues, watch this at YouTube."

For a well done, thorough, methodical, and extensive treatment of the history of the so called Hockey Stick, and recent climate science in general, including the CRU emails, you might find The Hockey Stick Illusion by A. W. Montford to be enlightening.

 
At 9/11/2011 12:16 PM, Blogger rjs said...

Thank you SBVOR: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reaches Record High (april 2009)

AFP: Arctic ice cover hits historic low: scientists
(yesterday)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHbXfOMtimZm-PhclNetc9ls62PQ?docId=CNG.f3d0496e61d6319e8fba0ef25f77bfcd.51

 
At 9/11/2011 7:15 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Here you go rjs you might find some science on arctic ice interesting, courtesy of Anthony Watts...

 
At 9/14/2011 3:16 AM, Blogger Ian Random said...

6/18/2008
"President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, according to White House officials who say Mr. Bush now wants to work with states to determine where drilling should occur."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home