Answer: none
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by ordvic
↧
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by stevepostrel
I haven’t had a chance to peruse this thread, but a search shows that no one has mentioned geoengineering. If it really were true that “we go over the cliff at 2 degrees C” and “we have to eliminate all fossil fuels by 2100 to achieve this with mitigation” then you could expect the SO2 cannons and bomb bays to be loaded up. I don’t see any will for the supermassive nuclear build-out that would be minimally necessary to achieve that beyond-heroic phaseout deadline.
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by ordvic
Who does that?
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by ordvic
I made a similar pitch minus the SO2 canons. Climate change?; let there be war!
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by jim2
Speaking of oil:
OIL 78.38
BRENT 84.38
NAT GAS 4.05
RBOB GAS 2.1138
↧
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by John
“the post describes a process”
Mosh, are you on Meds?
If we simply take, “Geological chance of success predictions inherently involve informed subjective probability.” and add it to any other crap phrase you’re going to need medics!
↧
Comment on How urgent is ‘urgent’? by ordvic
The only problem I see there is what motivation would there be to mitigate CO2 for an energy industry that does so well with fossil fuel?
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Bob Ludwick
@ Dr. Rose:
“Perhaps petroleum geoscientists can be forgiven for wishing sometimes that their academic colleagues had to function under similar circumstances!”
Actually Dr. Rose, the circumstances of petroleum geoscientists and Climate Scientists are much more similar than would appear at first glance.
Geologists like Dr. Rose work for energy companies. They are paid to identify locations where the energy companies should drill to obtain maximum product at minimum cost. The folks who fail to ‘deliver the product’ are culled ruthlessly.
Climate scientists work for Governments. They are paid to produce ‘scientific research’ that justifies continual, massive expansion of government power and authority, with the concomitant increase in government budget required to support the expanded authority. Those climate scientists who fail to ‘deliver the product’ (i. e. who produce data driven science that calls the ‘product’ into question, or, worse, flatly contradict ‘the product’) are culled just as ruthlessly as geologists who establish a reputation for producing multi-million dollar ‘dry holes’.
The history of this site is littered with accounts of climate careerists who made the mistake of producing the equivalent of a succession of ‘regulatory dry holes’–and were culled for their ‘incompetence’.
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by jim2
:)
↧
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Barnes
If this process led to concluding no sensitvity, would you drop your hubris?
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison wrote: “Depends on initial and boundary conditions – as I keep saying – and not silly verbiage based on silly little thought experiments.”
What kind of strange boundary conditions would cause a solid object immersed in a fluid to be subject to a positive buoyant force when there is no pressure gradient at all within the fluid. You are just waving your hands furiously… again.
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
“…surely the cognitive bias applies to her if anyone.”
I rarely engage with people like Jim D. It’s like trying to reason with someone suffering from delusions. Can’t be done, and leads only to frustration. But once in a while I can’t resist.
Consider Jim D. that Judith’s POV has actually changed over the years. She started out as a garden variety establishment warmist. Can you not see that she had to overcome all the cognitive bias inherent in a position that A., was derived mostly from second order information, and B. served her well professionally. It was I think she’d concede….as it almost always must be….a painful and costly process requiring much courage. Bucking the establishment is never easy.
When’s the last time you changed your mind on some fundamental issue at some personal cost? When’s the last time you even serially questioned your beliefs?
I know, I know, it hurts doesn’t it; But that’s just the point.
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by vukcevic
Kim
That is a bit of coincidence, Villafranca Marittima (now better known as Villefranche- sur-Mer) it was hit by unusually strong storm, as recently as today; a place well worth visiting..
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by jeremyp99
I don’t join clubs. I’m a total bookworm, have been since I could read, am quite capable of reaching my own conclusions about books, read fiction and non-fiction and – say, where’s the poll?
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by Mike Flynn
AFOMD,
World population is around 7,000,000,000.
Goodreads, according to you, has around 0.5 % of the population interested in what it represents.
By your figures, 99.5% of the world’s population don’t even give a tinker’s curse about the existence of Goodreads, let alone what the members think.
You ask why the world wonders.
I suggest that the world has indicated its complete lack of wonder, by ignoring your authors and their books, by a vast majority. You may wish that the minority, of which are apparently enamoured, should be able to bend the vast majority to their will, but I fear you will be sorely disappointed.
Maybe you would be more content if you could bring yourself to accept facts.
No science, no warming – no wonder, really.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by Fernando Leanme
David, the individual parameters ARE combined. In actual practice most companies will not continue working on very low probability exploration prospects.
You asked how a team or manager is judged…my observation is that in quite a few cases the individuals are JUDGED based on the results of key parameters. But I’m used to very expensive very lengthy projects. The teams working on these ventures get only a few trials (I’ve worked on projects with single well costs over $100 million USD, those usually take years to be executed).
I’ve also noticed different methods, strategies, the type of risks a company prefers can vary, and some companies go overseas without an experienced core staff and take a blood bath. One example: the companies exploring the Falklands acreage look like they are in diapers.
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by Wagathon
…nothing but mere insults sandwiched together as an argument.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by Rud Istvan
Read it. A very hard slog. And some of the connections I thought were a bit sketchy, unlike what TonyB posts.
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by vukcevic
No it is not a hillside, it is the sea, photo this afternoon, taken this afternoon few miles further along the coast in Cannes .
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by Mike Flynn
AFOMD,
I support your view that people like Hansen, and the various other buffoons, whether of the Blundering Bollywood variety, or the Bearded Balding kind, are either dupes, fools or frauds.
Good on yah, AFOMD!
There is a saying that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence (or taste) of the American public. You continue to set a low bar to hurdle, so that the feeble minded don’t have to exert themselves too much.
Keep up the good work AFOMD! You make the rest of us look positively brilliant by comparison!
No need to thank me, it’s my pleasure to point out what should be blindingly obvious to the average goldfish.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
