This came in from Pleiades who is always on the look out for shifts in the global geopolitical game.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin launched Russia's long-awaited Siberian oil export route Monday, giving energy-hungry Asia a new supply source from the world's largest crude exporter seeking to diversify its client base away from Europe.
Putin, clad in a heavy winter parka, pushed a button that initiated the first filling of an oil tanker bound for Hong Kong at a new oil terminal near the Russian Pacific port of Nakhodka, the projected terminus of the new Siberian oil pipeline.
"For Russia this is truly a serious event," Putin said during the terminal inauguration ceremony at the port of Kozmino near Nakhodka, in comments broadcast on state television.
"This is a strategic project because it allows us to enter completely new, growing, promising markets of the Asian Pacific region," Putin said.
"This is the completion of one of the largest projects in modern Russia. And not only modern Russia. It would be a grandiose project for the former Soviet Union too."
Earlier this year, Russian oil pipeline monopoly Transneft completed the construction of the first 2,694-kilometre (1,600-mile) section of the oil pipeline known by the acronym ESPO (Estern Siberian Pacific Ocean) linking Taishet in eastern Siberia with Skovorodino in the Amur region.
This portion of the project also included the construction of the Kozmino oil port inaugurated by Putin.
The second portion, a 2,100-kilometre (1,300-mile) stretch of pipeline, will run from Skovorodino to the Kozmino port.
For now, oil is being delivered by rail from Skovorodino to the Kozmino port where it is then to be pumped into tankers for shipment to markets in Asia.
Putin said the state-of-the-art terminal, which he praised as "eye candy," had cost 60 billion rubles (two billion US dollars) to build.
One would think such a pipeline cements the close ties between Russia and China as well as increase the pressure on the Arab Oil exporters to sell more oil, faster and cheaper. Not good for the global warming thing, but doubly, given the likelihood of peak oil scenarios, this is going to be very interesting how the diminishing oil resources are going to be accessed.
One ramification for America is that it is conceivable that the USA, Europe and Japan reach the bottom of the Saudi and Iraqi supply way before the Russians and Chinese exhaust their supply.
Medieval Records Show...
Here's another interesting article from Pleiades about Global Warming.
The study found evidence for periods of significant warmth (890 - 1170) in the Northern Hemisphere during medieval times and for clearly colder periods (1580 - 1850) during the so-called "Little Ice Age".
Their key conclusion was that the 20th century stands out as having unusually widespread warmth, compared to all of the natural warming and cooling episodes during the past 1,200 years.
The research team gathered climate change data from a number of regions in the Northern Hemisphere especially:
Long life evergreen trees growing in Scandinavia, Siberia and the Rockies, which had been cored to reveal the patterns of wide and narrow tree rings over time -- wider rings relating to warmer temperatures.
Ice from cores drilled in the Greenland ice sheets revealed which years were warmer than others by the chemical composition of the ice.
They also used a record developed from diaries of people living in the Netherlands and Belgium over the past 750 years that revealed for example the years when the canals froze.
I particularly liked the bit where they took records of when the canals froze as a reference. The Global Warming deniers are ever louder in their denials about what the scientists are saying. Here's a sample of Lord Monckton:
Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically significant "global warming", and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN's climate panel, that notion has not been disproved in reality.
However, the question I address is whether the cost of taking action is many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer is yes.
Millions are already dying of starvation in the world's poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, to grow biofuels for clunkers that don't. The policies that you advocate are killing people by the million. At a time when so many of the world's people are already short of food, the UN's right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has rightly condemned the biofuel scam as "a crime against humanity".
Yet this slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90 per cent certain that most of the "global warming" since 1950 is man-made. This claim - based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure - is demonstrably false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades - changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration - show that it was this largely natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.
Nor is the IPCC's great lie the only lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a "global warming" profiteer.
It is also a fact that, while those of the UN's computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase.
In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause "global warming" is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than about one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
He doesn't seem to be aware of global dimming that is masking the global warming effect and that the likely outgoing radiation is a result of the pollution particles in the air. In fact, the more you read Monckton's article you get the feeling of a man trying to construct a straw man out of global warming and taking immense satisfaction in beating the straw man.
It's classic private school debating bullshit, where if you spin bullshit hard enough, you might persuade the world to your ways. Well, physical reality says otherwise.But Tony Abbott indulges in this crap too, an he's now the Leader of Opposition. You sort of wonder where it's all going to go. I guess that as long as they deny it, their coal mining friends an coal-fire power generator owning friends don't have to fork out the money to pay for the carbon they're throwing in the atmosphere.
Talk about having their heads in the sand.
No comments:
Post a Comment