Comments on: EPA Denies Reconsideration Petitions

By: The EPA flubs Amazongate « Shub Niggurath Climate

The EPA flubs Amazongate « Shub Niggurath Climate — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:39:45 +0000

[...] veracity of the Nobel-prize winning IPCC reports. As a federal agency, the EPA can be fully expected to preserve its own right to regulate the environment. However, getting the science right, is as [...]

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:58:15 +0000

If I really thought, in reference to AGW, that the EPA chair actually cared about the scientific outcome, I might agree with you.

By: stereo

stereo — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:57:36 +0000

Thank you for that, but I was wondering what Mr McIntyre thinks, since the whole point of this ongoing issue is the science, not the soap opera of the political manouvering.

By: Doug Badgero

Doug Badgero — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:34:18 +0000

Stereo, my problem, and I am actually a US citizen,

The statutory precedent requires stationary sources emitting greater than 250 tons to be regulated. The proposed rule making will apply to stationary sources emitting greater than 25,000 tons. This will be challenged in court.

The science will also be challenged. There will be multiple judicial challenges, I suspect.

By: stereo

stereo — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:56:43 +0000

Putting up a topic just to attract some snark can be classed as trolling. What is your actual problem with the EPA’s stance on AGW?

By: stereo

stereo — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:22:55 +0000

Still waiting to hear your opinion on this.

By: Bad Bad Andrew

Bad Bad Andrew — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:08:26 +0000

“Better” NBC:

Global Warming Scare On Today, Vieira Frets: ‘Are We All Gonna Die?’

“So I’m running in the park on Saturday, in shorts thinking this is great but are we all gonna die? You know? I can’t, I can’t figure this out.”

It gets “Better” -

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/07/30/five-five-top-five-times-newsbusters-embarrassed-media-round-two-t-shirt-w

Andrew

By: Bad Bad Andrew

Bad Bad Andrew — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:12:40 +0000

“Better” – how scientifically precise.

Not “better” than ClimateAudit, RN.

Andrew

By: Spence_UK

Spence_UK — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:15:56 +0000

Rattus, it sounds like you need someone to audit Koops (or is it Knoops?) claims. I can recommend someone with glowing references, but since he would probably rather work on other things, I reckon you’d have to pay him handsomely for his time

I also think you missed the point of Steve’s post where he did his leak rate calcs. I don’t think he was claiming his calcs were terribly accurate. The main point that I took from his post was the lack of transparency in the figures calculated both by BP and the US coastguard that prevented any kind of reconciliation of the disparity. This was really a criticism of both BP and the US coastguard. You’ll see that, by being transparent, Steve’s calculations were quickly criticised by many in the post. These criticisms were a mixture of people correcting errors, identifying weaknesses in the assumptions, and people trying to shut the debate down. With the exception of those trying to stifle debate, all of these comments added to everyone’s understanding, showing the power of transparency with an open audience that contains many intelligent readers. Even the comments that contain errors, as they are usually swiftly corrected, as you have done here.

Postscript: I may have to slap Monckton if I ever meet him, for making this whole “primo” thing popular.

By: Rattus Norvegicus

Rattus Norvegicus — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:57:26 +0000

Ooops, I screwed the pooch on that one. Looks like I was off by a factor of 1000.

In which case I don’t believe the Dutch claims, or perhaps Mr. Knoop misspoke because 60000 BBL a day is miraculous. This seems odd for a single boom which could have been (as some claim) transported to the US in a couple of days. Something is wrong here.

On listening to the Knoop interview once again, is he referring to water+oil or just oil? If it is water+oil, I can believe that. Reference to an actual performance evaluation which shows that it is 60000 BBL/day of oil? For a single boom?

Quite frankly, even at your link, I don’t see anything which supports a claim of 60000 BBL/day. The link you provided seems to be, excuse me for using the term, pimping the use of Dutch skimmers. Googling for “Dutch Oil Spills” and variants shows that the Dutch have not had to deal with any notable spills. This makes me even more leary of Knoop’s claims.

Now the link you provided claimed (probably correctly) that the use of dispersent (Corexit, in this case) is worse than the oil itself. Well, there have been a lot of the evil “environmentalists” who agree with that. But I still don’t see any evidence that a single boom from the Dutch can suck up 60000 BBL/day.

To sum up:

Primo. I was not making fun of Steve’s calculations. I take them at face value. His updated values were seriously wrong and his friend was much closer to correct. Note that NPR (the rate he credits to Worley) story was aired before his post on this. I did make fun of Steve’s credulousness when he accepted the sadly incorrect input of his followers.

Secundo. Steve bought into the BP propaganda. It is right there in the first update. Quite frankly, I was wondering if Steve was right or if my lyin’ eyes were right. My lyin’ eyes were right, “Top Kill” was blowing up at pretty much the same time Steve said it was successful.

Tertio. I got the calculation wrong (metric system impaired here, I’m American). On the other hand, Knoop’s claim is screwy and it does not appear the Dutch have had to deal with a really large spill. But, there is no evidence that the EPA dissed the Dutch because of stupid regulations, which was the point of this portion of the thread.

Steve: I was sharply critical of the BP response plan. The Top Kill failure was obviously in the news and discussed in comments. The idea that I accepted anyone’s propaganda on this file is nonsense.