I guess you call it 'prostitution'. I am not a tree hugger. But I also don't fit in with the crowd that is my age, my stage in life, and in my profession. Most of my friends in the oil business are Texas born and bred. I do not even attempt to discuss politics with them, except maybe briefly. I come to Covers for that (probably a mistake there also).
I am involved in this debate because we have clients that are making some headway in figuring out how to get the 'carbon' back under ground again and lock it up in organic reservoirs (coal). When this process is figured out, these guys are going to start trading 'carbon credits'. A 'polluter' will pay my client X amount of dollars to emit carbon dioxide, if my client will pump a Y's worth of CO2 back in the ground. Whole point is to slow the growth of emissions. Going to be a very lucrative business when we figure it out. So, I feel good about that part of my 'prostitution' business. The rest, not so much, but hey, that is how I make a living.
And what people don't realize, is that the real bad greenhouse gas is methane, emitted in huge amounts (millions of tons per year) at coal mine entrances. That is what we are working in China right now for. China is the number one emitter of methane to the atmosphere. We are working with them to collect that methane before the mine ever reaches that point in the ground. Produce it via a wellbore, use it as fuel, and switch China over from a coal burning economy to a natural gas burning economy. Will clean up the air 10-fold.
C-Gold: I'm 54, have a doctorate in geology. That study from the 70's was real. It was also proven wrong a few short years later. Climate models were so crude back in the 70's- no computers worth mentioning. Climate trends were showing a progression toward a general cooling. By the 80's the whole business of climate forecasting changed with computer modeling. By the 90's the first realiable sea-surface temperature readings were made with satellites. Up to that point, it was based on measurements made by ships at sea.
But that's the beauty of science. In comes new data, out comes better models and forecasts. So your position is that anything that was said 35 years ago should be set in stone, and any wavering is some kind of ...how should I say it...'flip-flop'? Most people in the 14th century said if you sail far enough out to the horizon, you'd fall off the Earth. A little while later, that was proved false. So what do you want, hold onto the old theory and make fun of the new one because it reversed your course of thinking?
And having Gore come out with that video, sets the whole process back in my opinion. You take a polarizing political figure trying to have a scientific discussion, and you immediately alienate all those that were against him in the first place. Just dumb.
We simply have very little room to play 'science experiment' with the Earth by not critically examing what processes we may be changing. It's not going to reach a critical stage in my lifetime, but it probably will in my son's, and that is what troubles me the most.