MDN Weekly Update – Oct 2, 2011: Global Warming Debate

Poll resultsBelow are the results of last week’s poll on whether or not so-called “vandalism” against drilling sites should be considered an act of domestic terrorism. Seems the MDN audience is split almost evenly on this one. 

Should vandalism at drilling sites be considered an act of terrorism?

Yes (51%, 129 Votes)
No (46%, 116 Votes)
Not sure (3%, 9 Votes)

Total Voters: 254

Do you believe in man-caused global warming?

A theme MDN returns to from time to time, because it is so obvious, is that those who oppose natural gas drilling often do so because they have an ideological view that all fossil fuels, including natural gas, are “evil.” The thinking goes that fossil fuels create carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned, and that CO2 levels are increasing to dangerous levels in the earth’s atmosphere. The argument is: more humans on the planet using more energy = more burning of fossil fuels = more CO2 in the atmosphere AND more CO2 in the atmosphere causes a rise in the earth’s temperature. Conclusion: man causes global warming. Solution? Don’t burn fossil fuels but instead use renewable energy sources like wind and solar. A simplistic description of the argument, but, I believe, an accurate one.

There are many problems with the theory of man-made global warming, not least of them that there is no evidence that an increase in CO2 levels causes a greenhouse effect of temperatures rising significantly. And also no evidence that even if more CO2 is being released and trapped in the atmosphere, that ole Mother Earth can’t somehow cope with it. The planet is not as fragile as some would have us believe. Global warmists ignore the biggest influencer of weather and temperature on planet earth: the sun. The sun has decades-long cycles of radiation and sunspots which arguably do more to increase or decrease temperatures on earth than any other cause. But that’s conveniently left out of Al Gore’s and other warmists’ equations.

earth temperatureAnd don’t get me started on where, exactly, do we go to take the “temperature” of the earth? And how is that temperature measured? How is it averaged? What geographies are included and excluded? And how can the warmists claim we have rising temps compared with the temps from thousands of years ago when accurate and consistent methods of measuring temperature (with scientific instruments) have been around for maybe 150 years—a relative blink of an eye?

I have pointed out the connection between those who oppose drilling and their ideology of “we all must dump fossil fuels and convert to renewables now to save the planet before it’s too late.” And when I make my comments that I’m a skeptic of the underlying argument of man-made global warming—that the planet doesn’t need saving, that the threat is not actually there—I inevitably get called an ignorant git, a mass-polluter, an industry shill, someone only interested in the almighty buck.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that I am dead wrong. Let’s assume that man is causing global warming because he’s burning fossil fuels and pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere. Would it not make sense to burn the fossil fuel that puts the least amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, at least for now? Of course it would. Burning a fossil fuel with the least amount of CO2 contribution would mean we could slow the process of global warming down, perhaps even stop it. In that case, global warmists should fully embrace the least-polluting kind of fossil fuel, right? Well, there you would be wrong.

Instead of embracing natural gas for what it is—the cleanest burning and least polluting fossil fuel—warmists have to concoct pretend reasons for why why we shouldn’t use it anyway. Their ideology of forcing everyone to convert to alternative non-fossil fuel forms of energy has so blinded them, they lie even to themselves and gin up faux scientific studies to show that natural gas is “just as bad—even worse!” than coal and oil. Sad that otherwise smart people are not so smart because of their own biases.

Honest folks will honestly disagree on the topic of man-caused global warming, I’m well aware. If my skeptical views make you think I’m a nut job, well, go read someone else’s blog. I’m not hiding who I am and what I think.

What I would like to know with this week’s poll is how many in the MDN audience believe (or not) that man causes a significant amount of global warming. How many of you are my fellow gits?

Be sure to register your view (anonymously of course) on the right side of any page on the site. And feel free to leave a comment on this post with your thoughts if you’re so inclined.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Five Most Viewed Stories This Past Week (Sep 25 – Oct 1)

  1. Chesapeake’s New Utica Shale Wells Producing “Very Strong” (9/29/11)
  2. Marcellus, Utica, and now…Upper Devonian?! (9/29/11)
  3. Obama Advisor Says Shale Gas Drilling is Here to Stay (9/28/11)
  4. Belmont County, OH Landowners Sign Utica Shale Leases (9/19/11)
  5. Major Discovery – Chesapeake Energy Strikes Oil (and Gas) in Ohio’s Utica Shale (7/29/11)

Five Most Viewed Stories Last 30 Days (Sep 1 – Oct 1)

  1. Belmont County, OH Landowners Sign Utica Shale Leases (9/19/11)
  2. Major Discovery – Chesapeake Energy Strikes Oil (and Gas) in Ohio’s Utica Shale (7/29/11)
  3. Is Marcellus Shale a Mineral? An Important Question in PA (9/22/11)
  4. List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania (6/30/10)
  5. Exxon Acquiring Acreage in OH Utica Shale for Oil Drilling (9/23/11)

MDN Calendar (Oct 2 – Oct 15)


New York


West Virginia


  • Pingback: MDN Weekly Update – Oct 2, 2011: Global Warming Debate ...()

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Willis, thank you for publishing the good, the bad, and the ugly as it applies to the gas patch.  As you can probably tell from my comments posted here occasionally, I am pro-drilling and pro-Marcellus-natural gas production while simultaneously wanting to do so with limited footprint and only positive impact on the Marcellus residents.  If executed properly, the Marcellus drilling and production programs are, and will be the highest impact economic blessing the region has ever seen, and the region keeps on exposing more hydrocarbon deposits in the forms of the Utica and the Upper Devonion.  When I read in here on MDN and in other sources about locals protesting at drilling locations, I wonder if they left their heated/air conditioned homes in their cars and trucks drinking water from a plastic bottle? Or did they hike for days from their pristine non-hydrocarbon-influenced existence somewhere in the mountains where none of the blessings and conveniences brought about by the exploitation of hydrocarbons have been allowed?  I’m not meaning to sound smart-alecky, but I want to know if we’re dealing honestly with each other when the pros and the antis end up in the same patch of ground?

  • Anonymous

    I am a supporter of gas drilling and I do believe the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of man made global warming. I can justify using natural gas because it is  a great deal better than coal; no SO2, 80% less NOx little CO , 50%  less CO2 , no mercury, arsenic, little particulate matter, etc. Without a national consensus  [ such as what is happening in Germany ] to make the expensive move quickly to alternative  energies  , natural gas serves as a  good transition energy source. I support tightening the regulations on the release of methane [ as New york State is proposing] during the clean up stage of drilling  because methane leakage could undo the environmental benefit of natural gas; methane being many times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
      I believe it is a mistake to ignore the world wide preponderance of evidence for man made global warming while choosing to believe the very small group of  naysayers .Natural gas use should  be sold as a big step in the right direction for the environment based on genuine science. The advantages to our national and economic security are just the icing on the cake.
                                                    J Otto

  • Anonymous

    The jury is still out as far as gas being less polluting than coal.  Check out this site: 
    And there’s other sites out there basically saying the same thing.

    As long as methane escapes from the wells instead of being trapped, pollution is there.  The EPA, with rules that are due to go into effect in 2012, may address the air pollution problem.

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.